Grammar Police - Graduate School

[QuikSand]

Okay, from time to time I (and others) have posted a thread here to discuss, bemoan, berate, or otherwise converse about grammar and its (mis)use.

Most of these conversations turn into a pretty predictable venting about "pet peeves" and the like. We get all the apostrophe stuff (which gets to me), the homonym misuse stuff, the using-the-wrong-word-you-idiot stuff, and so forth. The thing is -- other than a few inevitable "fucking elitists" gate crasher posts in each thread, it ends up basically being the good grammar types sitting together in a thread and complaining about the people who use poor grammar. (...and spelling...and diction... I know, I know)

So - this thread is intended to be different.

If you've made it this far, you know that it's "would have" rather than "would of." You know the difference between "its" and "it's" and between "dominant" and "dominate." So, there's no need to cover that. If any of those items are puzzling to you ... move along people, nothing to see here.

- - -

In this thread - post grammar, spelling, usage, and pronunciation tips that people might actually be able to use. Common mistakes made by people who are otherwise on the ball, that sort of thing.

Links to sites detailing this stuff are okay, but I personally am lazy and prefer that you actually spoon this right to me. It's a weakness.

I intend to learn something here, and I hope you do, too.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Pictures are hung. People are hanged.

[QuikSand]

Example usage:

The North Koreans' continued use of nuclear testing was clearly intended to flaunt international organizations.

- - -

The word you want here is flout (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flout), not flaunt (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flaunt).

To flout is to defy... to flaunt is to show off. It's actually not that subtle a difference, though I'd estimate that 80% or more of the people who seek to use the word "flout" end up incorrectly using the word "flaunt" instead.

This could end up becoming another one of these "language evolution" debates -- as in time, some dictionaries might start to include a secondary usage of "flaunt" to mean "to defy." It still doesn't make it right -- the word to use is "flout," period.

[QuikSand]

Pictures are hung. People are hanged.

This could go badly from here.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

This could go badly from here.
Sorry, just something an English professor once said to me. Stuck with me ever since. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Chas in Cinti]

When one receives a favor, they are grateful.

Not greatful...

-Chas

[albionmoonlight]

The past subjunctive to express hypothetical states. It does not come up much, but when it does, people tend to misuse it. I got into an argument with my boss about this, and she was right and I was wrong. So it has stuck in my head.

In formal English, you use the word "were" to express a hypothetical or non-factual state--not "was."

I wish that Brian Westbrook were training camp right now.

NOT

I wish that Brian Westbrook was in training camp right now.
_______________________________________

If I were Brian Westbrook, I would come to camp.

NOT

If I was Brian Westbrook, I would come to camp.
____________________________________________

CITE: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0082859.html

[Maple Leafs]

Presently means "soon", not "now".

[KevinNU7]

Presently means "soon", not "now". :confused:

[QuikSand]

Here is one where, it seems, the good guys have finally surrendered:

short-lived (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/short-lived)

This word is derived from the word "life," and not from "live" -- and so it ought to be pronounced with a long "i" sound -- to more or less rhyme with the word "arrived." Of course, hardly anyone does so, nearly all say it with a short "i" sound.

The link I used above essentially concedes that the previously incorrect pronounciation is so common as to be rendered now correct. Shame, really.

[dacman]

pres·ent·ly http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dpresently) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (prhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifnt-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
adv.


In a short time; soon: <CITE>She will arrive presently.</CITE>
Usage Problem. At this time or period; now: <CITE>He is presently staying with us.</CITE>
Archaic. At once; immediately.
Usage Note: An original meaning of presently was “at the present time; currently.” That sense is said to have disappeared from the literary language in the 17th century, but it has survived in popular usage and is widely found nowadays in literate speech and writing. Still, there is a lingering prejudice against this use. The sentence <CITE>General Walters is... presently the United States Ambassador to the United Nations</CITE> was acceptable to only 50 percent of the Usage Panel in the late 1980s.

[Karlifornia]

At a formal dinner party, never say "ain't". Always say "ai not"

[Karlifornia]

Here is one where, it seems, the good guys have finally surrendered:

short-lived (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/short-lived)

This word is derived from the word "life," and not from "live" -- and so it ought to be pronounced with a long "i" sound -- to more or less rhyme with the word "arrived." Of course, hardly anyone does so, nearly all say it with a short "i" sound.

The link I used above essentially concedes that the previously incorrect pronounciation is so common as to be rendered now correct. Shame, really.

Ok, we need a grassroots campaign to rescue this baby from obscurity.

[QuikSand]

Ok, we need a grassroots campaign to rescue this baby from obscurity.

Just shed a tear with me. That'll do.

[Klinglerware]

The link I used above essentially concedes that the previously incorrect pronounciation is so common as to be rendered now correct. Shame, really.

Well, nothing much can be done about pronunciation changes over time, it seems like natural cultural progression to me. On this topic, I read an article about a theatre group that is attempting to produce some of Shakespeare's plays using Elizabethan pronunciation, the idea being that the dialogue flows more naturally (i.e., words that rhymed in Elizabethan times no longer rhyme now).

Oh, to thread-jack a little more: I find it ironic that this thread is labeled "Graduate School", since grad school is the one place where writers can take the most liberty with their prose (in fact, often creating new usage seemingly at will), without fear of mockery or retribution.

[korme]

Pictures are hung. People are hanged.
And some guys are hung.

[korme]

Here's one: does the word couple mean a pair in every sense? I mean, if I say "It has been a couple of years." Does that mean exactly two, or is it like few, where the word can be interpreted to mean a small amount?

If it solely means two, I don't know why anyone would go to the extent to say "a couple" instead of just saying "it's been 2 years."

[JeeberD]

Couple means two. Period.

[Buzzbee]

I'm afraid to post in this thread. I've typed 5 sentences so far, and deleted all of them for fear of making a stupid grammatical error.

[korme]

Couple means two. Period.
That's what my whole family was trying to convince me. But after I typed the post, I looked it up.

Jeeber you are as dumb as my family!

cou·ple http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcouple) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (khttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifphttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl)
n.
Two items of the same kind; a pair.
Something that joins or connects two things together; a link.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.
Two people together.

Informal. A few; several: <cite>a couple of days.</cite>
Physics. A pair of forces of equal magnitude acting in parallel but opposite directions, capable of causing rotation but not translation.

[JeeberD]

Dictionary.com is dumb in this instance, Shorty...

[Buzzbee]

Here's one: does the word couple mean a pair in every sense? I mean, if I say "It has been a couple of years." Does that mean exactly two, or is it like few, where the word can be interpreted to mean a small amount?

If it solely means two, I don't know why anyone would go to the extent to say "a couple" instead of just saying "it's been 2 years."
Perhaps 'it's been 2 years' implies that it has been exactly two years, whereas 'it's been a couple of years' is less exact and implies a timeframe greater than one year but less than three years.

[QuikSand]

The denotation of "informal," in most dictionaries, is akin to saying "not technically correct, but still common..." -- not exactly a ringing endorsement there.

[korme]

Oh, ok. Didn't know that..

[Raiders Army]

The past subjunctive to express hypothetical states. It does not come up much, but when it does, people tend to misuse it. I got into an argument with my boss about this, and she was right and I was wrong. So it has stuck in my head.

In formal English, you use the word "were" to express a hypothetical or non-factual state--not "was."

I wish that Brian Westbrook were training camp right now.

NOT

I wish that Brian Westbrook was in training camp right now.
_______________________________________

If I were Brian Westbrook, I would come to camp.

NOT

If I was Brian Westbrook, I would come to camp.
____________________________________________

CITE: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0082859.html
Absolutely. Upon reading post #1 in this thread, this was the grammar usage mistake that I thought of.

I'd also throw out there that you should never end a sentence in a preposition.

Instead of my second sentence above, it should be "Upon reading post #1 in this thread, this was the grammar usage mistake that came to my mind."

[Samdari]

The denotation of "informal," in most dictionaries, is akin to saying "not technically correct, but still common..." -- not exactly a ringing endorsement there.

I'd go so far as to say it is equivalent to "slang" or perhaps that term's PC replacement.

I would also go so far to say that the definition of couple that you want to be true being listed as such validates what everyone has been trying to tell you for years - that couple means TWO.

The 'informal' definition that you want so much to be accurate being listed as such is really dictionary.com saying "lots of dumbasses use it to mean this, even though it really doesn't."

[Huckleberry]

Can someone detail the history of raise versus rear?

[Celeval]

In formal English, you use the word "were" to express a hypothetical or non-factual state--not "was." This is an easy one to remember.

"Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Meyer Weiner..."

[HomerJSimpson]

The 'informal' definition that you want so much to be accurate being listed as such is really dictionary.com saying "lots of dumbasses use it to mean this, even though it really doesn't."


But of course, when "lots of dumbasses" becomes "the majority of use," it then becomes the "correct use." I know rigid-thinking people hate to admit it, but languages change over time (or else we'd still be using thee and thou).

[Klinglerware]

But of course, when "lots of dumbasses" becomes "the majority of use," it then becomes the "correct use." I know rigid-thinking people hate to admit it, but languages change over time (or else we'd still be using thee and thou).

Hear, hear!

[Raiders Army]

But of course, when "lots of dumbasses" becomes "the majority of use," it then becomes the "correct use." I know rigid-thinking people hate to admit it, but languages change over time (or else we'd still be using thee and thou).
Thou art a dullard. :D

[Samdari]

But of course, when "lots of dumbasses" becomes "the majority of use," it then becomes the "correct use." I know rigid-thinking people hate to admit it, but languages change over time (or else we'd still be using thee and thou).

You are confusing "correct use" and "common use"

[korme]

I'd go so far as to say it is equivalent to "slang" or perhaps that term's PC replacement.

I would also go so far to say that the definition of couple that you want to be true being listed as such validates what everyone has been trying to tell you for years - that couple means TWO.

The 'informal' definition that you want so much to be accurate being listed as such is really dictionary.com saying "lots of dumbasses use it to mean this, even though it really doesn't."
A bit harsh, but, uh... okay.

[Samdari]

A bit harsh, but, uh... okay.

Not harsh at all. The term "dumbass" when applied to you, is synonymous with "cuddly"

[Fritz]

language change could be worse - it could be abrupt (mild hijack)

Old German spellings now verboten
Last Updated Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:59:56 EDT
CBC News
Most German traditionalists are reluctantly switching over to new German spelling rules that came into effect this week, designed to modernize and simplify the language.

But some are vowing to defy the rules and stick to the old ways.

"I don't agree with the changes," said German linguist Friedrich Denk, an outspoken critic of the reforms. "It's a black day for the German language. Our common orthography that has served us well for centuries is being destroyed."

More than six years ago, a special committee revised spelling rules in an attempt to rid the language of many of its quirks and make it more logical.

Germany, Austria and Switzerland have been in transition since then, with both sets of spelling rules in use.

Under the new system, extremely long compound words have been broken up, comma rules have been simplified, and in many cases a double-S replaces the old letter sign for the sound, which resembles a capital B.

School children have adapted easily to the changes, partly because their textbooks have been re-printed in accordance with the new spelling rules.

Several leading newspapers have stubbornly refused to introduce the changes, though, and stuck to the old spellings leading up to the Aug. 1 deadline for making the shift. Some politicians and intellectuals have even called for the reforms to be stopped, arguing that the new rules only serve to confuse things.

The German states of Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia are resisting the changes as long as they can.

The states, which are home to one-third of Germany's population, have opted to wait until the German Spelling Council has dotted the i's and crossed the t's on all the new rules before declaring the old ways incorrect.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/08/02/german-spelling050802.html
---

[HomerJSimpson]

You are confusing "correct use" and "common use"


No, I know exactly what both of those mean. I'm just pointing out that "common use" becomes "correct use" over time. Don't believe me? Read anything from the early 1800's and see if the gammar and definition of words have changed.

[JeeberD]

land in many cases a double-S replaces the old letter sign for the sound, which resembles a capital B.

They can't get rid of the etset!!!

[HomerJSimpson]

Here is one where, it seems, the good guys have finally surrendered:

short-lived (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/short-lived)

This word is derived from the word "life," and not from "live" -- and so it ought to be pronounced with a long "i" sound -- to more or less rhyme with the word "arrived." Of course, hardly anyone does so, nearly all say it with a short "i" sound.

The link I used above essentially concedes that the previously incorrect pronounciation is so common as to be rendered now correct. Shame, really.


Why is it a "good-guy/bad-guy" thing? At what year was diction of all english words perfected, and all words must be pronounced as such for all ages? 1850? 1901? 1958?

[Raiders Army]

Good guys=intellectuals
Bad guys=guys who don't wear deodorant

[Huckleberry]

Hey, I'm all for change. Just recognize that the changes are because too many people are/were uneducated.

It's going to rock when "pwn" is in the dictionary.

[Samdari]

No, I know exactly what both of those mean. I'm just pointing out that "common use" becomes "correct use" over time. Don't believe me? Read anything from the early 1800's and see if the gammar and definition of words have changed.

Yes, the language does evolve. But, your previous post about how if "correct" language did not change, we would still be using "thee" and "thou" illustrates how you are confusing that with common usage. Both words are still proper, in every dictionary you will find, but have been dropped from common use. Their disappearance represents a change in common usage, not in proper usage. The organizations that define "correct" use of language operate on a time scale more commonly assciated with geological change.

[Raiders Army]

Hey, I'm all for change. Just recognize that the changes are because too many people are/were uneducated.

It's going to rock when "pwn" is in the dictionary.
I'll be happy when it's on Wheel of Fortune.

_ _ _ _ _ ST _ _T _ _ NED!

PHRASE
RSTLNE CMD A

[Klinglerware]

No, I know exactly what both of those mean. I'm just pointing out that "common use" becomes "correct use" over time. Don't believe me? Read anything from the early 1800's and see if the gammar and definition of words have changed.

Yeah, and take a look at Chaucer:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=Cha2Can&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/lv1/Archive/mideng-parsed

Language pronunciation, spelling, grammar, and usage will inevitably change over time

[HomerJSimpson]

Yes, the language does evolve. But, your previous post about how if "correct" language did not change, we would still be using "thee" and "thou" illustrates how you are confusing that with common usage. Both words are still proper, in every dictionary you will find, but have been dropped from common use. Their disappearance represents a change in common usage, not in proper usage. The organizations that define "correct" use of language operate on a time scale more commonly assciated with geological change.


No, it was a change in proper usage. It would have been incorrect years ago (and not in geological "thousands" of years) *not* to use those words. It is now uncommon but also would be improper usage outside of certain areas (theology being the only one I can think of). Language changes more rapidly than you are giving it credit.

[HomerJSimpson]

Yeah, and take a look at Chaucer:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=Cha2Can&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/lv1/Archive/mideng-parsed

Language pronunciation, spelling, grammar, and usage will inevitably change over time


You don't have to go back that far. Read anything written in the early 1800's and you'll quickly see words whose definitions have completely changed and very odd gammar usages.

[HomerJSimpson]

I'm sorry, QS. I think I took your thread the wrong way. I'll never be able to look in your big, yellow eyes again. :)

[Passacaglia]

Why would it be so bad if we were using 'thee' and 'thou' presentl -- er, right now?

[Raiders Army]

Why would it be so bad if we were using 'thee' and 'thou' presentl -- er, right now?
Jesus copyrighted the usage. Any copying or duplication in part or in whole is prohibited without the express written permission of the Holy Trinity.

[Passacaglia]

Jesus copyrighted the usage. Any copying or duplication in part or in whole is prohibited without the express written permission of the Holy Trinity.

Damnit! First he comes to kill me cause I'm Jewish, now this!

[duckman]

I wonder how much QuikSand cringes when he reads my posts? :D

[QuikSand]

I'd also throw out there that you should never end a sentence in a preposition.

Great minds can disagree on this... personally, I think that it's a rule worth following, and under no circumstances shoudl one use the dreadful dangling preposition ("Where did you get those shoes at?").

However, there are quite a number of idioms that involve prepositions, and I thin it is far clearer and better English to simply use them naturally, than to try to follow the letter of this supposed rule.

His humor isn't what I'm fond of.
versus
His humor isn't that of which I am fond.

I think this is a no-brainer, and choose the former.

In more formal, written English, the best course is probably to rewrite the sentence to avoid the conundrum, but in common and spoken usage, I don't have a problem seeing idiomatic use of prepositions to end a phrase, clause, or even a sentence. The folks who don't make it to this thread are generally better off with a hard and fast rule, but if you can actually handle the language, I think it's fine to use your best judgment (sigh).

[Huckleberry]

judgment

:D

[Mr. Wednesday]

The word "wherefore" means "why", not "where". "Wherefore art thou Romeo" does not mean "Where are you, Romeo", it means "Why are you Romeo" -- in the sense of, why is this amazingly cool guy that I have a crush on a member of the family that is in a blood feud with my family.

[QuikSand]

judgment

Didn't that used to be optional, as well? I have clear memories from childhood spelling bee preparations that declared this word acceptabley spelled either way. Now, the "e" is evil.

*sigh*

[Raiders Army]

Great minds can disagree on this... personally, I think that it's a rule worth following, and under no circumstances shoudl one use the dreadful dangling preposition ("Where did you get those shoes at?").

However, there are quite a number of idioms that involve prepositions, and I thin it is far clearer and better English to simply use them naturally, than to try to follow the letter of this supposed rule.

His humor isn't what I'm fond of.
versus
His humor isn't that of which I am fond.

I think this is a no-brainer, and choose the former.

In more formal, written English, the best course is probably to rewrite the sentence to avoid the conundrum, but in common and spoken usage, I don't have a problem seeing idiomatic use of prepositions to end a phrase, clause, or even a sentence. The folks who don't make it to this thread are generally better off with a hard and fast rule, but if you can actually handle the language, I think it's fine to use your best judgement.
/agree

In writing, however, changing the sentence makes it sound "better." I'm not fond of his humor. The change in this case also makes the sentence stronger.

[QuikSand]

HJS...

I realize that the language changes. That can't be disputed, you don't have to use some parlor trick to convince me that this is what actually happens.

ust in the shortened framework of my own lifetime, I find it depressing that many (most? all?) of the "changes" we see in the language are essentially of the same variant -- people, as a group, are too stupid/lazy/ignorant/careless to use the word properly, and so the new usage is redefined to conform to what was previously determined incorrect, but was used anyway.

I realize it's inevitable. I guess it's probably even proper. I still don't have to like it. I hope you can see the difference.

[QuikSand]

/agree

In writing, however, changing the sentence makes it sound "better." I'm not fond of his humor. The change in this case also makes the sentence stronger.

Agred on both counts, it's not a great example, I admit.

[Buzzbee]

HJS...

I realize that the language changes. That can't be disputed, you don't have to use some parlor trick to convince me that this is what actually happens.

ust in the shortened framework of my own lifetime, I find it depressing that many (most? all?) of the "changes" we see in the language are essentially of the same variant -- people, as a group, are too stupid/lazy/ignorant/careless to use the word properly, and so the new usage is redefined to conform to what was previously determined incorrect, but was used anyway.

I realize it's inevitable. I guess it's probably even proper. I still don't have to like it. I hope you can see the difference.

Will it ever become proper to use 'axe' when posing a question, or will Whitey continue to suppress?

[DanGarion]

Good guys=intellectuals
Bad guys=guys who don't wear deodorant

What do the French have to do with this?

[QuikSand]

How many of you, who have made it this far into this thread, pronounce the initial "r" in the month February? Just curious.

[JeeberD]

Not I.

[Huckleberry]

I had always been told that judgement is British and judgment is American. And we're in America. No problem either way, but I think judgement is the variant that has made its way into American dictionaries only recently.

As for February, I pronounce it very softly. At that perfect level that satisfies my need to be correct without causing people to question it.

[Buzzbee]

How many of you, who have made it this far into this thread, pronounce the initial "r" in the month February? Just curious.
I do.






Except more times than not it comes out as Feb-yer-ary rather than Feb-roo-ary.

[QuikSand]

As for February, I pronounce it very softly. At that perfect level that satisfies my need to be correct without causing people to question it.

Me, too.

[Subby]

I realize "normalcy" is now an accepted word, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

[JW]

Here are two errors among many that my English students often make.

Alot is not a word. Use a lot or some other choice instead. I prefer that my students find another choice.

Alright is not a word. Use all right or some other choice instead. Note however that accepted usage with alright is changing, and some dictionaries are beginning to list it as acceptable. This is one of those cases where it is so often misused that the grammarians have apparently begun throwing up their hands in disgust and giving in, the wimps.

[Daimyo]

Forte should be pronounced with one syllable as in "fort" not "for - tay."

Whenever I use that correctly people always "correct" me. *shurg*

EDIT: Note that I'm refering to forte as in the strong point of a person and not forte as in the musical direction which is pronounced differently (and perhaps causes the confusion).

[Maple Leafs]

I would think this is obvious, but I see it everywhere on the Web these days:

When you use quote marks, it means you are quoting exactly what a person said. It's not just shorthard for "they said", it means an exact quote, using the exact words. That means your verbs and prepositions need to line up properly.

The following makes no sense:
My friend told me he "was very angry at his wife".

Unless the guy walked out and said "Hey everyone, just to let you all know, I was very angry at his wife" then you're not actually quoting him properly. If you want to give a third-person account of what he said, fine, but don't quote it.

[JW]

I would think this is obvious, but I see it everywhere on the Web these days:

When you use quote marks, it means you are quoting exactly what a person said. It's not just shorthard for "they said", it means an exact quote, using the exact words. That means your verbs and prepositions need to line up properly.

The following makes no sense:
My friend told me he "was very angry at his wife".

Unless the guy walked out and said "Hey everyone, just to let you all know, I was very angry at his wife" then you're not actually quoting him properly. If you want to give a third-person account of what he said, fine, but don't quote it.

That is a very good point and for some reason a very difficult concept for my English and journalism students to pick up.

[Psmith]

If someone is getting by with what he has on hand, he is making do, not making due.

[JW]

And another one: gonna. Please do not write gonna in an English class. If you do, I'm gonna count it wrong.

[QuikSand]

Forte should be pronounced with one syllable as in "fort" not "for - tay."

Whenever I use that correctly people always "correct" me. *shurg*

I had meant to add this to the list, as well.

There are a fair number of words like this, where pronouncing the word correctly will generally make you look like a dope, even if you are correct. "Short-lived" used to be among them, as did "schism" (properly pronounced SIZZ-um, not SKIZZ-um) and "flaccid" (FLAK-sid, not FLAS-sid) until the good guys gave up on them, also.

[Subby]

Negotiations or Negossssseations?

[Buzzbee]

Or if you're SuperGay, negotheeathyunsth.

[JW]

Ask or ax?

[Maple Leafs]

Forte should be pronounced with one syllable as in "fort" not "for - tay."

Whenever I use that correctly people always "correct" me. *shurg*

EDIT: Note that I'm refering to forte as in the strong point of a person and not forte as in the musical direction which is pronounced differently (and perhaps causes the confusion).This has been clear in my mind ever since I read George Carlin's, um, descriptive mention of this.

[Rizon]

you all make me sick. no wonder why no one on here can spell a word right. is your all grammer bad now. come ouy guys please spell check for once you god shake.

[Dutch]

QS, et al,

I'd offer some input to your little thread here, but I'm too busy taking notes.

[HomerJSimpson]

HJS...

I realize that the language changes. That can't be disputed, you don't have to use some parlor trick to convince me that this is what actually happens.

ust in the shortened framework of my own lifetime, I find it depressing that many (most? all?) of the "changes" we see in the language are essentially of the same variant -- people, as a group, are too stupid/lazy/ignorant/careless to use the word properly, and so the new usage is redefined to conform to what was previously determined incorrect, but was used anyway.

I realize it's inevitable. I guess it's probably even proper. I still don't have to like it. I hope you can see the difference.


Nor would I say you have to like it. Change is just not neccesarily "bad." I think all language changes are caused by, as you say, stupid/ignorant/careless use. It is not like people sit down and vote to stop using this word, or start using this word another way. Changes just take place over time. I can't remember what I was reading (it was a number of years ago), but it was written by a British professor of language, who pointed out how some grammar laws and pronouncations change over the course of years, and others change almost over-night (if you can call a couple of days overnight). I still trying to remember the word he was showing changing from (and my memory is failing) slaughterhouse, to a foul smell, to something that just doesn't even seem to fit with the two, all in the matter of 20-30 years.

(and as I am writing this stream of thought) It was a book on the original King James translation of the Bible, and how much trouble they had agreeing to words that fit the greek. There was even one example that was better, where the translator used a word meaning in one thing, and even in the few years it took to finish and print the text, the word carried a meaning that didn't fit the original at all.

Anyway, wasn't really loooking to debate all this. Just had to pipe in the required "language changes" point.

[Glengoyne]

How many of you, who have made it this far into this thread, pronounce the initial "r" in the month February? Just curious.\


/raise hand
/looks around

I actually sort of take pains to say it. I find myself repeating the word if I think I don't pronounce it clearly enough.

So just how weird does that make me?

[Glengoyne]

I had meant to add this to the list, as well.

There are a fair number of words like this, where pronouncing the word correctly will generally make you look like a dope, even if you are correct. "Short-lived" used to be among them, as did "schism" (properly pronounced SIZZ-um, not SKIZZ-um) and "flaccid" (FLAK-sid, not FLAS-sid) until the good guys gave up on them, also.

The For-tay bit completely threw me. I had no clue. Same thing for flaccid.

The sizzum thing is something I've come across, and even tried to use, but I usually only remember this after I've already blown it.

More in the matter of punctuation, I couldn't rightly describe a circumstance where it is appropriate to use either a colon or a semi-colon. Not even a clue. If it were asked in a job interview, I'd freeze completely...I couldn't even BS my way through a response.

[ahbrady]

The For-tay bit completely threw me. I had no clue. Same thing for flaccid.

The sizzum thing is something I've come across, and even tried to use, but I usually only remember this after I've already blown it.

More in the matter of punctuation, I couldn't rightly describe a circumstance where it is appropriate to use either a colon or a semi-colon. Not even a clue. If it were asked in a job interview, I'd freeze completely...I couldn't even BS my way through a response.

I didn't know about forte or flaccid either.

I'm also with you on the semi-colon. I think I have a little bit of a clue on the colon, but I don't think I've ever used a semi-colon.

I wanted to respond to this thread earlier, but my fear that I would make some huge grammatical error kept me from it. I am annoyed greatly by obvious grammar mistakes, but I am nowhere near the grammar expert of most of you. This thread has helped me with a few that I didn't know about and reminded me of some that I had forgotten.

[JW]

More in the matter of punctuation, I couldn't rightly describe a circumstance where it is appropriate to use either a colon or a semi-colon. Not even a clue. If it were asked in a job interview, I'd freeze completely...I couldn't even BS my way through a response.

As an English teacher, I have to teach proper usage of the semicolon and colon, if for no other reason than that my students will get a question or two about them on their high-stakes test.

However, in their writing I advise them to simply not use either of the two. That way they won't make mistakes in using them and won't have to figure out how to use them.

[Raiders Army]

As an English teacher, I have to teach proper usage of the semicolon and colon, if for no other reason than that my students will get a question or two about them on their high-stakes test.

However, in their writing I advise them to simply not use either of the two. That way they won't make mistakes in using them and won't have to figure out how to use them.
Not to nitpick, but your sentences would be great for a semi-colon. I've always heard that you shouldn't (you can, but you shouldn't) start a sentence with "however". The way around it is to put a semi-colon at the end of the preceding sentence and combine the two sentences since they're connected thoughts anyhow.

Then again looking at your first sentence, it's pretty long so I might not do that in that situation.

[Mr. Wednesday]

There is a set of conjunctions that are properly used with a semicolon before and a comma after, in contrast to and, or, and but, which are properly used with a comma before; also, in some circumstances it makes sense to use a semicolon as a lone divider between two complete sentences.

(I think I demonstrated the first case in that sentence; I couldn't describe the second, but I know it when I see it.)

[JW]

Not to nitpick, but your sentences would be great for a semi-colon. I've always heard that you shouldn't (you can, but you shouldn't) start a sentence with "however". The way around it is to put a semi-colon at the end of the preceding sentence and combine the two sentences since they're connected thoughts anyhow.

Then again looking at your first sentence, it's pretty long so I might not do that in that situation.

That could be done, but I tend to follow my own rule and avoid advanced punctuation, lol. As for starting a sentence with however , that is one of those things that is commonly ignored in standard practice.

[CraigSca]

Here are two things that have always eluded me, though I still insist on using them :)

The difference between "effect" and "affect". And, when "i.e." should be used vs. "e.g."

Can anyone help a young boy out?

[ahbrady]

Here are two things that have always eluded me, though I still insist on using them :)

The difference between "effect" and "affect". And, when "i.e." should be used vs. "e.g."

Can anyone help a young boy out?

Most of the time "effect" is a noun and "affect" is a verb. I know that's not always the case, but I can't think of an example when it's not right now. I'm sure that someone else will give a better explanation.

[QuikSand]

The simplest rule for "effect" and "affect" is this:

affect is the verb, effect is the noun

You want to affect your performance, so taking steroids will have that effect.

That gets you about 95% of the way home, and if you get that far, you are basically in very good shape.


...now, for the graduate level stuff.

There are alternate meanings of each word, which happen to criss-cross the patrs-of-speech separation above. You can safely go your whole life without using either one, and be just fine -- for most people, that is the safest course of action. But for completeness:

effect can also be a transitive verb, meaning "to bring about" or "to cause" something... the most frequent usage is in the phrase "to effect change." This is correct, though not a very common usage.

affect can also be a noun, meaning "face" or "appearance" -- a bit like the word facade. This is even less common, but is also technically correct.

Since this tends to scramble the fairly simple noun/vern split, I generally advise people to just opt out of using both words this way.

I have even had editors "correct' my work when I properly used the verb "effect" -- this has happened to me twice in my professional career, as people less skilled than I with the language have been above me in the food chain. This does not please me, as you might imagine.

I think that covers those two words. A mnemonic device for the short cut is that affect" starts with "a" just like action, so it's the one that's the verb signigfying action. Use that if you like.

[Raiders Army]

The simplest rule for "effect" and "affect" is this:

affect is the verb, effect is the noun

You want to affect your performance, so taking steroids will have that [/u]e[/u]ffect.


more to come...
Or just remember, they're "Special Effects".

[JW]

Real discussion last year in one of my English classes:

Usher or Ursher?

[QuikSand]

And, when "i.e." should be used vs. "e.g."

i.e. is an abbreviation for id est meaning "in other words" and used essentially in place of that English phrase.

He is a typical rural politician, i.e. he'll support the gun bill every time.

e.g. is an abbreviation for exempli gratia translating to "for free" but essentially meaning "for example."

He supports all the conservative issues, e.g. pro-gun legislation.



edit - udpated with corrected translation (damn, I did that from memory, against my better judgment)

[Ajaxab]

The simplest rule for "effect" and "affect" is this:

affect is the verb, effect is the noun

You want to affect your performance, so taking steroids will have that effect.

That gets you about 95% of the way home, and if you get that far, you are basically in very good shape.


...now, for the graduate level stuff.

There are alternate meanings of each word, which happen to criss-cross the patrs-of-speech separation above. You can safely go your whole life without using either one, and be just fine -- for most people, that is the safest course of action. But for completeness:

effect can also be a transitive verb, meaning "to bring about" or "to cause" something... the most frequent usage is in the phrase "to effect change." This is correct, though not a very common usage.

affect can also be a noun, meaning "face" or "appearance" -- a bit like the word facade. This is even less common, but is also technically correct.

Since this tends to scramble the fairly simple noun/vern split, I generally advise people to just opt out of using both words this way.

I have even had editors "correct' my work when I properly used the verb "effect" -- this has happened to me twice in my professional career, as people less skilled than I with the language have been above me in the food chain. This does not please me, as you might imagine.

I think that covers those two words. A mnemonic device for the short cut is that affect" starts with "a" just like action, so it's the one that's the verb signigfying action. Use that if you like.

This one is invariably difficult for my freshmen students to get their heads around. I have explained the difference numerous times, but alas, the mistakes perpetuate themselves. Like JW, I have advised students to avoid colons and semicolons entirely and will now add affect/effect to that list as well.

[Klinglerware]

Like JW, I have advised students to avoid colons and semicolons entirely and will now add affect/effect to that list as well.

What's the alternative? In psychology class, they'd be screwed.

[Mr. Wednesday]

And, when "i.e." should be used vs. "e.g."

Can anyone help a young boy out? i.e. is an abbreviation for "that is" (I believe the latin id est but could be wrong there).
e.g. is an abbreviation for "for example".

[KWhit]

i.e. is almost always screwed up. I constantly see it used to mean "for example" by people who should know better.

Sigh.

[JW]

This one is invariably difficult for my freshmen students to get their heads around. I have explained the difference numerous times, but alas, the mistakes perpetuate themselves. Like JW, I have advised students to avoid colons and semicolons entirely and will now add affect/effect to that list as well.

Lol, I don't go that far. The interesting problem in Louisiana is that our standard curriculum assumes that the students know the difference between nouns and verbs by the time they reach high school, so I am supposed to be able to simply explain the affect/effect difference that way. Unfortunately, many of them don't know the difference between nouns and verbs. So that is one of the things I end up marking up all year long, and some of the students catch on if they have to rewrite it enough times. And, no, I don't have time to go back and teach my students the difference between nouns and verbs. And, no, some of them should never have made it to high school.

[Psmith]

i.e. is an abbreviation for id est meaning "in other words" and used essentially in place of that English phrase.

He is a typical rural politician, i.e. he'll support the gun bill every time.

e.g. is an abbreviation for et gratis translating to "for free" but essentially meaning "for example."

He supports all the conservative issues, e.g. pro-gun legislation.

You're correct that e.g. means "for example," but where are you getting et gratis from? My dictionary says it's an abbreviation for exempli gratia, which is Latin for (wait for it) "for example." Et gratis isn't even sensible Latin. Gratis (or gratiis) by itself means free; you don't need to add et (meaning "and") to it.

[CraigSca]

i.e. is almost always screwed up. I constantly see it used to mean "for example" by people who should know better.

Sigh.
Yes, I'm one of those offenders. Hopefully that ends today.

[Pyser]

so whats the difference between "presume" and "assume"?

[Raiders Army]

so whats the difference between "presume" and "assume"?
The saying wouldn't make sense if you said "When you presume, you make a pres out of u and me."

[Breeze]

If you have problems with grammar usage, style, techniques, and/or formats

Get:

The Gregg Reference Manual

and use it. I write often and still use it on occassion.

I have to confess here that I don't monitor my spelling, grammar, or punctuation in these posts. :)

[QuikSand]

The past tense of "sneak" is sneaked, period. There is no proper word snuck, though it too is showing up in some dictionaries due to wanton loose usage.

[Bee]

The past tense of "sneak" is sneaked, period. There is no proper word snuck, though it too is showing up in some dictionaries due to wanton loose usage.

I'm in favor of wanton loose usage.

[oliegirl]

The past tense of "sneak" is sneaked, period. There is no proper word snuck, though it too is showing up in some dictionaries due to wanton loose usage.


I know sneaked is proper, but it's one of those words that just doesn't sound right.

[WSUCougar]

The past tense of "sneak" is sneaked, period. There is no proper word snuck, though it too is showing up in some dictionaries due to wanton loose usage.
:o

Yes, I sneaked "snuck" in instead of "sneaked." I suck...er, seaked.

[dacman]

Apparently on the internet, it's forbidden to use the word role. Replace with roll.

When speaking about the part a person plays on a sports team, or as a part of an artistic production the word is role. R-O-L-E.:mad:

[cuervo72]

That's funny, because I'd swear that I've seen people described as being "on a role" on the internet...

[sterlingice]

The past tense of "sneak" is sneaked, period. There is no proper word snuck, though it too is showing up in some dictionaries due to wanton loose usage.Usage Note: Snuck is an Americanism first introduced in the 19th century as a nonstandard regional variant of sneaked. Widespread use of snuck has become more common with every generation. It is now used by educated speakers in all regions. Formal written English is more conservative than other varieties, of course, and here snuck still meets with much resistance. Many writers and editors have a lingering unease about the form, particularly if they recall its nonstandard origins. And 67 percent of the Usage Panel disapproved of snuck in our 1988 survey. Nevertheless, an examination of recent sources shows that snuck is sneaking up on sneaked. Snuck was almost 20 percent more common in newspaper articles published in 1995 than it was in 1985. Snuck also appears in the work of many respected columnists and authors: “He ran up huge hotel bills and then snuck out without paying” (George Stade). “He had snuck away from camp with a cabinmate” (Anne Tyler). “I ducked down behind the paperbacks and snuck out” (Garrison Keillor).SI

[QuikSand]

If that was intended to refute my description, I think it fails.

In this (rare) case, it seems I was the less long-winded of the two variants, each saying basically the same thing.

[sterlingice]

No, I figured it backed up what you were saying. I had never heard that before, personally.

SI

[WSUCougar]

Bunch of feakers is what you all are!

[LoneStarGirl]

I noticed this in the superbowl thread earlier... Isn't it A LOT, and not ALLOT, or ALOT?

[QuikSand]

I noticed this in the superbowl thread earlier... Isn't it A LOT, and not ALLOT, or ALOT?

Yes, it is.

[Dutch]

Strangely enough, I think I would use both words.

"The cat sneaked past the owner into the kitchen."
"Last week we snuck out of the house to go to a party."

[QuikSand]

Another common one:

Uninterested means you don't find the subject worthy of your attention. In this case, you are bored by watching a game, because it's a sport you don't like, it's a blowout or being played badly, or something of that sort.

Disinterested means you are impartial, or you don't have a stake in the outcome... you can be watching a game intently, but be disinterested if you don't care who wins (you don't have money on it, you don't really root for either team, etc.).

[Barkeep49]

Disinterested vs uninterested is an important concept for anyone who wants to understand what the Founders were aiming for in politicians.

[cuervo72]

Dammit.

[Glengoyne]

I know sneaked is proper, but it's one of those words that just doesn't sound right.

This is how I feel about pled. It used to be that "So and So pled guilty to such and such a charge. Now it is "So and so pleaded guilty..." I can't take it.

[Klinglerware]

This is how I feel about pled. It used to be that "So and So pled guilty to such and such a charge. Now it is "So and so pleaded guilty..." I can't take it.

Yeah, I see "pleaded" in the NYTimes all the time--it just doesn't feel as correct as "pled", but I guess I'm wrong.

[Lorena]

From an email I received:

"Some of our contracts won't have signatures on Ex 1 due to its only required to have signature on signature page."

My grammar isn't perfect by any means, but this just drove me NUTZ!!

[Pyser]

so whats the difference between "presume" and "assume"?

since the thread is bumped, i bump my question.

[AlexB]

since the thread is bumped, i bump my question.

I think 'to assume' is to conclude based on little or nothing, and 'to presume' is to conclude based on evidence.

Or in other words assume is a wild leap of faith, and presume is an educated guess. That's my take on it anyhoo.

Edit: as this is a grammar thread, I may as well match my tenses ;)

[Raven Hawk]

From Dictionary.com

To presume is to suppose that something is reasonable or possible in the absence of proof to the contrary
To assume is to accept something as existing or being true without proof or on inconclusive grounds
The only difference that I see is that assuming takes into account that there might also be inconclusive evidence, rather than just being void of evidence.

However, they are listed as synonyms.

[Brillig]

Today's entry in the "I'd like to beat you with a thesaurus" competition.

San Francisco to Bid for 2016 Olympics

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/18/MNG8VIU1JO3.DTL



After New York's crushing defeat in the bid for the 2012 Games that went to London, the USOC will not enter into another competition unless it believes it can win. Toward that end, a U.S. candidate city would have to have international cache and recognition.



If you're going to use a word like cachet, please, for the love of God, use it correctly and don't get it mixed up with a completely different word.

[Ksyrup]

Proper word choice is not that writer's fort.

[Glengoyne]

Proper word choice is not that writer's fort.

Pronounced fort, but isn't it still spelled forte?

[Ksyrup]

Is there a smilie for the "woosh, over your head" action? :p

It's spelled forte`, and pronounced for-TAY. It was my attempt at a joke at the expense of the cache/cachet writer.

[Maple Leafs]

It's spelled forte`, and pronounced for-TAY.
Actually, "fort" is proper as well, although everyone says for-tay.

[QuikSand]

It's spelled forte`, and pronounced for-TAY.

As discussed in page two of this very thread (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=856918&postcount=67)...

Actually, it's properly pronounced FORT, but since nearly everyone actually (mis)pronounces it for-TAY, the definition of "properly" is shifting and both are often listed as being acceptable. But if we're in graduate school in this thread, that should be noted.

[Maple Leafs]

The English word forte, meaning "specialty" or "strong point," is not pronounced "for-tay." Got that? It is pronounced "fort." The Italian word forte, used in music notation, is pronounced "for-tay," and it instructs the musician to play loud: "She plays the skin flute, and her forte [fort] is playing forte [for-tay]."
&nbsp;

[Passacaglia]

Glad this thread got bumped, as I was just about to. Let's talk about deceptively.

de·cep·tive·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sptv-l)
adv.
In a deceptive or deceiving manner; so as to deceive.
Usage Note: When deceptively is used to modify an adjective, the meaning is often unclear. Does the sentence The pool is deceptively shallow mean that the pool is shallower or deeper than it appears? When the Usage Panel was asked to decide, 50 percent thought the pool shallower than it appears, 32 percent thought it deeper than it appears, and 18 percent said it was impossible to judge. Thus a warning notice worded in such a way would be misinterpreted by many of the people who read it, and others would be uncertain as to which sense was intended. Where the context does not make the meaning of deceptively clear, the sentence should be rewritten, as in The pool is shallower than it looks or The pool is shallow, despite its appearance.

I don't know what the Usage Panel is, but I'm in the camp that says if something is deceptively shallow, is still is shallow.

[sachmo71]

some of you folks could make ass-diamonds

[Wolvendancer]

Since this is ostensibly a sports forum, I'll give ya two I find in sports reporting a lot:

"Barry Sanders finally got untracked, rolling for over 200 total yards."

My God, how I hate this. He got on track, not untracked.

"Brett Favre to announce retirement today."

"To" is not a verb. Brett Favre will announce, perhaps, or perhaps you could find an active verb that isn't a form of be.

[sachmo71]

See?

[Passacaglia]

Since this is ostensibly a sports forum, I'll give ya two I find in sports reporting a lot:

"Barry Sanders finally got untracked, rolling for over 200 total yards."

My God, how I hate this. He got on track, not untracked.

"Brett Favre to announce retirement today."

"To" is not a verb. Brett Favre will announce, perhaps, or perhaps you could find an active verb that isn't a form of be.

I understand your complaint, but I think 'announce' is the active verb here. The form 'to announce' is the infinitive. I think that might be considered acceptable usage in a headline.

[QuikSand]

"Brett Favre to announce retirement today."

"To" is not a verb. Brett Favre will announce, perhaps, or perhaps you could find an active verb that isn't a form of be.

I disagree here... the convention for headlines defies regular grammar, and alows them to truncate and eliminate words that are easily understood. Here, I have no problem with that particular convention -- it's clear what they mean in any reasonable context... they obviously mean "is prepared to announce" or "is scheduled to announce" or something of the sort.

[Glengoyne]

Is there a smilie for the "woosh, over your head" action? :p

It's spelled forte`, and pronounced for-TAY. It was my attempt at a joke at the expense of the cache/cachet writer.

I'll say Whooosh! right back at you.

[QuikSand]

Here's another one -- a little subtle, and I don't think I have ever seen a formal rule for what to do.

The phrase "whether or not" can, in perhaps 90% of its uses, be perfectly replaced with the word "whether." Clear writing prefers brevity - so it's preferred to use the simpler version.

Similar logic led a professor to once tell me "there's no circumstance when you need the word 'utilize' -- we have a perfectly good word for that already, it's 'use.'"

[Pumpy Tudors]

Evidently, a common thing here in the Pittsburgh area is to say "anymore" instead of "lately" (example: "I haven't taken my clothes off for money anymore."). When I was a kid, I had read a couple of things describing the proper ways to use "leave" and "let", but I never heard anybody get them wrong when I was in Louisiana. Well, I know what the books were talking about now. Many people up here use "leave" instead of "let" and vice versa.

I know it's kind of silly for a guy from New Orleans to talk about people talking funny, but down there, we just made up our own words. Up here, people use real words, but they use them in strange ways. :D

[Huckleberry]

I must disagree regarding sneaked versus snuck. Before I got to the post describing the origin of snuck as a regional issue, I was going to explain the same thing.

And I'll be damned if "y'all" wasn't a word until those damn Yankee dictionary-makers finally added it. ;)

[Maple Leafs]

Did I cover "hopefully" already?

[QuikSand]

I must disagree regarding sneaked versus snuck. Before I got to the post describing the origin of snuck as a regional issue, I was going to explain the same thing.

I fail to see what you're disagree with. As stated above... the long-standing proper form is "sneaked," but "snuck" has become increasingly widely used and is now very common, to the point of becoming (by some sources) an acceptable alternative.

You disagree with what from above? The statement that "sneaked" is the correct word?

[Huckleberry]

You disagree with what from above? The statement that "sneaked" is the correct word?

Yes. I do believe you'd get your ass kicked around here for saying that. And that can never be correct.

[QuikSand]

I don't expect to be visiting anytime soon.

[21C]

Has anyone mentioned my pet peeve of "off of"?

As in "I picked up the paper off of my lawn". It seems to get used all of the time when "off" would suffice.

[clintl]

Example usage:

The North Koreans' continued use of nuclear testing was clearly intended to flaunt international organizations.

- - -

The word you want here is flout (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flout), not flaunt (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flaunt).

To flout is to defy... to flaunt is to show off. It's actually not that subtle a difference, though I'd estimate that 80% or more of the people who seek to use the word "flout" end up incorrectly using the word "flaunt" instead.

This could end up becoming another one of these "language evolution" debates -- as in time, some dictionaries might start to include a secondary usage of "flaunt" to mean "to defy." It still doesn't make it right -- the word to use is "flout," period.

Of course, people could avoid this error by using the word "defy" when they want to use a word that means "defy."

[Axxon]

Here's another one -- a little subtle, and I don't think I have ever seen a formal rule for what to do.

The phrase "whether or not" can, in perhaps 90% of its uses, be perfectly replaced with the word "whether." Clear writing prefers brevity - so it's preferred to use the simpler version.


Just like forever and ever. Forever pretty much covers it.

[Zippo]

"the data show" not "the data shows"

[Mac Howard]

Being an Englishman I usually feel superior in these threads but there's a couple of errors listed above that I wasn't aware of - whoops, of which I wasn't aware :rolleyes:

I note, QS, that there's an uncharacteristic number of typos in your posts. Have you included a code for us to work on or is your subconscious playing tricks because of the subject matter? :)

A couple of things I hear from Americans which always causes me to wonder if they're errors or common usage on your side of the pond:

alternate instead of alternative

The answer "I don't" instead of "I haven't" - "Have you seen my car keys?. "No, I don't".

"Start over" instead of "start over again"

Oh, and my ancestors in Lancashire have been saying "snook" for centuries :)

[RPI-Fan]

The answer "I don't" instead of "I haven't" - "Have you seen my car keys?. "No, I don't".

Anyone who anwers that way is probably just a redneck.

[sterlingice]

"the data show" not "the data shows"

I'm not so sure about that. I thought data was a collective noun in many cases, thus making it singular.

SI

[QuikSand]

I've always heard that "data" is ambiguously singular or plural, and that in most cases either usage is acceptable. I'm not aware if there's a more specific rule that applies to the instance you use above... but I wouldn't feel comfortable criticizing the usage you do.

[QuikSand]

I note, QS, that there's an uncharacteristic number of typos in your posts. Have you included a code for us to work on or is your subconscious playing tricks because of the subject matter? :)

Actually, typos are very characteristic of me... I'm probably guilty of more typos on this board than most people have typed words. I tend to type very quickly (faster than I can handle) and only bother to go back if there's something rendered difficult to read or understand. How to square that with my general encouragement of "attention to detail" is left as an exercise for the critic.

[Touchstone]

This word, of course, may come with its own set of grammar police problems, but I feel a need to indicate that it is

y'all and NOT ya'll.

It is short for YOU ALL.

[Dutch]

"You will not look as good when you reach nine-hundred years old." should read "When nine-hundred years old you reach, look as good, you will not."

Not many get that one right.

[sterlingice]

This word, of course, may come with its own set of grammar police problems, but I feel a need to indicate that it is

y'all and NOT ya'll.

It is short for YOU ALL.

I agree that people abuse this perfectly legitimate second person plural pronoun ;) (or at least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it)

SI

[kcchief19]

Actually, typos are very characteristic of me... I'm probably guilty of more typos on this board than most people have typed words. I tend to type very quickly (faster than I can handle) and only bother to go back if there's something rendered difficult to read or understand. How to square that with my general encouragement of "attention to detail" is left as an exercise for the critic.
This is a random thing to discover two some-odd months later, but I'm absolutely in this same boat. My typos are rarely, if ever, a matter of not knowing the correct usage but just typing faster than I can handle. I tend to combine words, I'll occassionally type one word that is similar to another word, I'll transpose laters, etc. I assumed that I was either developing adult on-set dyslexia or early on-set Alzheimer's. While I'm afflicted much worse than Quik, I'm glad to know that someone I consider automatic feels they miss some extra points now and then.

[Bee]

This is a random thing to discover two some-odd months later, but I'm absolutely in this same boat. My typos are rarely, if ever, a matter of not knowing the correct usage but just typing faster than I can handle. I tend to combine words, I'll occassionally type one word that is similar to another word, I'll transpose laters, etc. I assumed that I was either developing adult on-set dyslexia or early on-set Alzheimer's. While I'm afflicted much worse than Quik, I'm glad to know that someone I consider automatic feels they miss some extra points now and then.

Watch out for those transposed laters. ;)

[kcchief19]

Watch out for those transposed laters. ;)
Dear god. Is that poetic justice or what?

[dbd1963]

I have an MA in English and this kind of thing strikes me as a poopy-headed waste of time. It's not exactly in line with my interests, but I did teach remedial English to adults, along with high school English.

Ordinarily I wouldn't bother to post my opinion in a thread like this one, but in this case, and in this venue, I think it's worth mentioning that what we are doing here is communicating. When I read the stuff on the net from a variety of people with varying degrees of education in English, many of whom maybe don't speak English as a first language, all I ask is that I can understand what they mean when they write. If I don't understand, I ask for clarification. I can't think of a time when I never came to understand what was being communicated.

The fact that human languages are robust enough to convey meaning with some imperfections in the transmission is a fact to be celebrated. A site like this one, with people from all around the world communicating together quite easily, is a great wonder if you really stop to think about it. How is it that people understand each other, coming from such different backgrounds, learning different things, and having an imperfect grasp of the language? Yet they do, and without a whole lot of effort either.

So why bother about a thread like this one? There's some danger, small though it may be, that those not confident enough about their use of English will feel less able to try communicating out of fear they will be singled out or ridiculed. Knowing the general tenor of this board, I can already hear the chorus of "so what? Fek 'em".. Well, sometimes something you needed or wanted to know won't get posted. You'll still get the same old stuff you always get no matter what you do here, that's certain, but the those things that are known by few people are less likely to be posted if there are barriers, even informal ones. So that's one reason to bother.

Then there is my own sense of the place we are in. There are places where maybe it's more useful to launch a crusade on issues in standardizing English. But on a sports game website? It makes me want to say things like, "Egad! The ENORMITY of it!!" (See how serious I am? I used allcaps and TWO exclamations.) This is just straight out of bounds for a site like this one. If one can't "let one's hair down" in a place like this one, then where can one.. uh, do that hair-letting-down thing, then? If I wanted to, say, rhetorically speaking of course, scratch my balls and belch, I can't do it HERE, on a site dedicated to a football game?

imonhavta make a adjustment here, scuse me.. ahh, that's better.

Maybe it's legit to spend time educating people about the things that do inhibit understanding, like WRITING IN ALLCAPS AND STUFF LKE THAT FOR PAGES AND PAGES or never using any punct or anything and i dont like to use caps either but with all this unpunctuated stuff who can rly follow wht im talking about n e way.. Maybe there's a use in that, though it only takes a little practice and I'm reading that as well as anything else, on account of the amazing stretchiness of language. But proper use of subjunctive.. wha? On a sports game website?

::blink blink::

I know that my take on it will likely only be a provocation to those who like this stuff, and if there's one thing I dislike more than grammar policing, it's back and forth bitching about grammar policing. I am reminded of a certain quote by Emerson in his essay "Self Reliance" -- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

And then looking back at it just now, "whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.” There's a point to those quotes that goes beyond the argument here, but they are still applicable.

Finally, I have to admit, threads like this one often contain the well-manured seeds of comedy gold. A point against my railing, and I acknowledge it.

[st.cronin]

Emerson was a tool.

[sterlingice]

I have an MA in English and this kind of thing strikes me as a poopy-headed waste of time. It's not exactly in line with my interests, but I did teach remedial English to adults, along with high school English.

No, you're a poopy-headed waste of time :D

SI

[Ajaxab]

Thought those who have stuck with this thread might find some interest in this site: hxxp://eggcorns.lascribe.net/.

[Ksyrup]

This is more like remedial school, but it made me laugh, so I needed to post it somewhere and this is the most recent grammar thread. From Steve Phillips' chat:

"...a ligitement shot..."


And no, that's not something Phillips typed.

[Neon_Chaos]

I'm not so sure about that. I thought data was a collective noun in many cases, thus making it singular.

SI

I've worked as a copyeditor for IEEE publications, and the word data is always regarded as plural.

[21C]

I attended a teachers' conference the other day and the guy running it made a ton of errors both in print and in speech.

The best one - or the most jarring - was when he spoke of 'ingrediences.' I'm guessing that he was thinking of the word 'ingredients' and thought, "I'm sure that word is the singular case so I need to turn it into a plural somehow."

It also reminded me of a teacher I work with who keeps using the word 'incidences.' I'm sure he's thinking of an 'incident' and is trying to get the plural as 'incidents' but then he's crossing it with the word 'incidence' which doesn't fit his context. As in "There have been many incidences of fighting at our school lately."

[Ksyrup]

From the recap of the Phillies/Mets game last night:

Wagner said Burrell has a "one path swing, and I threw it in it's path."

I seriously doubt Wagner included the apostrophe as he spoke...

[Maple Leafs]

Wagner said Burrell has a "one path swing, and I threw it in it's path."

I seriously doubt Wagner included the apostrophe as he spoke...
You know how some people annoy everyone by making those double-quote movements with their hands when they talk? I'm going to start doing a single-quote movement whenever I use an apostrophe. When everyone is doing this in a few years, remember that it started with me.

[Oilers9911]

Not sure if this had been mentioned yet but I have seen many instances on message boards of someone being called a "premadonna" So wait...someone is before Madonna? WTF? I think you mean primadona.

[Ksyrup]

Not sure if this had been mentioned yet but I have seen many instances on message boards of someone being called a "premadonna" So wait...someone is before Madonna? WTF? I think you mean primadona.

Those are my favorite kinds of screw-ups, because it's one thing to misspell or misuse a word, but it's another to demonstrate that you lack a fundamental understanding of the genesis of the word you're attempting to use.

A couple of weeks ago, that guy who replaced Kuselius on ESPN Radio in the afternoons (Seibel...? (not sure of the spelling)) was talking about Giambi, I think it was, and he kept saying that he was speaking up about steroids to soothe his conscious. And he kept saying that over and over. After a few minutes, I started to feel bad for him, but then I figured why should I - the guy probably makes way more money than I do and clearly doesn't deserve it, so a little public humiliation is the price he pays. I'm just shocked no one was whispering in his ear, "It's conscience, you idiot! CONSCIENCE!!!!"

[Oilers9911]

Those are my favorite kinds of screw-ups, because it's one thing to misspell or misuse a word, but it's another to demonstrate that you lack a fundamental understanding of the genesis of the word you're attempting to use.

A couple of weeks ago, that guy who replaced Kuselius on ESPN Radio in the afternoons (Seibel...? (not sure of the spelling)) was talking about Giambi, I think it was, and he kept saying that he was speaking up about steroids to soothe his conscious. And he kept saying that over and over. After a few minutes, I started to feel bad for him, but then I figured why should I - the guy probably makes way more money than I do and clearly doesn't deserve it, so a little public humiliation is the price he pays. I'm just shocked no one was whispering in his ear, "It's conscience, you idiot! CONSCIENCE!!!!"

I was watching the Canada/Costa Rica Gold Gup match the other night and before the game started the commentator said...the officials are concurring at midfield. Either he meant conferring or they officials were actually just agreeing on everything.

[terpkristin]

I was on the Metro last night, coming home from a jaunt in DC, when I saw this on a sign: "Is your SAVINGS safe?" I wanted to grab a picture of it so I could remember what company actually ran the ad, but by the time I grabbed my phone, the train had moved on (for anybody in the DC area, it was on the orange line, somewhere between Eastern Market and Rosslyn, I was heading west).

My general rule of thumb when it comes to grammar, at a first cut anyway, is, "does it sound right when you say it aloud?" "Is your savings safe" doesn't sound right to me when I say it out loud. I guess it comes down to if "savings" is singular or plural, and after giving it a lot of thought, I couldn't decide. "Savings account" is singular, but "savings" on its own is fairly ambiguous....any thoughts from the grammar crew here?

/tk

[MJ4H]

Usage Note: Traditionalists state that one should use the form a saving when referring to an amount of money that is saved. Indeed, that is the form English speakers outside of the United States normally use. In the United States the plural form a savings is widely used with a singular verb (as in A savings of $50 is most welcome); nonetheless, 57 percent of the Usage Panel find it unacceptable.

(dictionary.com)

[sterlingice]

I love this thread :)

SI

[terpkristin]

I love this thread :)

SI

I, on the other hand, thought it was slightly disturbing last night when my first thought upon realizing I couldn't make heads or tails of the "correctness" of it was to post here.... ;)

/tk

[Chief Rum]

I was on the Metro last night, coming home from a jaunt in DC, when I saw this on a sign: "Is your SAVINGS safe?" I wanted to grab a picture of it so I could remember what company actually ran the ad, but by the time I grabbed my phone, the train had moved on (for anybody in the DC area, it was on the orange line, somewhere between Eastern Market and Rosslyn, I was heading west).

My general rule of thumb when it comes to grammar, at a first cut anyway, is, "does it sound right when you say it aloud?" "Is your savings safe" doesn't sound right to me when I say it out loud. I guess it comes down to if "savings" is singular or plural, and after giving it a lot of thought, I couldn't decide. "Savings account" is singular, but "savings" on its own is fairly ambiguous....any thoughts from the grammar crew here?

/tk

Yeah, while I am right with you in this thread and with respect to the deplorable nature of grammar in general, I think this is one of those exceptional (set out as separate; not extraordinary) cases where popular usage may end up trumping a set rule. The use of savings as a singular is very widespread, and at some point, that turns it from wrong to right.

As crappy as that is.

[revrew]

dbd1963 - Dude, it's OFF-TOPIC for a reason. We scratch our balls in the on-topic forum. Here, we only scratch them if we can do it in a grammatically correct manner.

I am increasingly aggravated with the virtual elimination of the serial comma in today's writing. It is becoming widely accepted, especially in my field (publishing; I'm an editor by trade), to drop that last comma in a series: "planes, trains and automobiles" rather than "planes, trains, and automobiles." NOOO!

Here is a case where saving the extra keystroke actually hinders clear communications. I recall reading several articles where I read a series, only to be seriously confused by it, when placing the comma would have clarified the meaning. The serial comma should NOT be dropped. It is NOT acceptable to omit it. Period. I don't give a fig what the almighty Usage Panel says. Sticklers, unite!

[Chief Rum]

dbd1963 - Dude, it's OFF-TOPIC for a reason. We scratch our balls in the on-topic forum. Here, we only scratch them if we can do it in a grammatically correct manner.

I am increasingly aggravated with the virtual elimination of the serial comma in today's writing. It is becoming widely accepted, especially in my field (publishing; I'm an editor by trade), to drop that last comma in a series: "planes, trains and automobiles" rather than "planes, trains, and automobiles." NOOO!

Here is a case where saving the extra keystroke actually hinders clear communications. I recall reading several articles where I read a series, only to be seriously confused by it, when placing the comma would have clarified the meaning. The serial comma should NOT be dropped. It is NOT acceptable to omit it. Period. I don't give a fig what the almighty Usage Panel says. Sticklers, unite!

Actually, dropping the last comma has been accepted in the AP style book, the standard for grammar (and other word usage topics) in print journalism, which is adopted also by most mainstream Internet publications, for at least two decades now.

As a former reporter, I have never had an issue understanding the lack of it (especially when you view the comma as a replacement for "and", which is always included in the last part of the series in these sentences).

[Chief Rum]

And, BTW, as to your first sentence, dbdwhatevernumbersareinhisname wrote that in 2006! He may not even be around anymore. ;)

[Maple Leafs]

Actually, dropping the last comma has been accepted in the AP style book, the standard for grammar (and other word usage topics) in print journalism, which is adopted also by most mainstream Internet publications, for at least two decades now.
Same with CP style.

[QuikSand]

Actually, dropping the last comma has been accepted in the AP style book, the standard for grammar (and other word usage topics) in print journalism, which is adopted also by most mainstream Internet publications, for at least two decades now.

...and I give thanks to my parents, God and Ayn Rand.

[QuikSand]

I am increasingly aggravated with the virtual elimination of the serial comma in today's writing.

While I'm with you in principle, I'd probably use a different adjective in this thread. Strict usage of the term "aggravated" is to say that an existing condition was made worse, rather than saying someone was annoyed.

[dontreadthis]

It's "cool, calm, and collected (as opposed to collective)".
Just hearing that disappoints me.

[Chief Rum]

It's "cool, calm and collected (as opposed to collective)".
Just hearing that disappoints me.

Fixed that for ya. ;)

[Ajaxab]

I am becoming increasingly irritated by the use of the alleged word 'impactful.' Sure, language is always changing, but for some reason this coinage just bugs me.

[NoMyths]

Actually, dropping the last comma has been accepted in the AP style book, the standard for grammar (and other word usage topics) in print journalism, which is adopted also by most mainstream Internet publications, for at least two decades now.

As a former reporter, I have never had an issue understanding the lack of it (especially when you view the comma as a replacement for "and", which is always included in the last part of the series in these sentences).

The AP style book may accept confusion as a standard of doing business, but us hardliners certainly don't. The serial comma is something over which I've fought kind of hardcore in my editing and teaching. There are no disadvantages to using it, but all sorts of problems can crop up when it isn't used.

The AP dropping it probably has more to do with print costs (same reason for not having two spaces after a period in print -- saves ink and paper) than grammar.

Now when you go to the grocery store later please pick up food for dinner, bananas and cat food.

[kurtism]

Cue Vampire Weekend.

[MikeVic]

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?

[st.cronin]

Now when you go to the grocery store later please pick up food for dinner, bananas and cat food.

I don't see how an extra comma would make that any more or less comprehensible.

[MikeVic]

I don't see how an extra comma would make that any more or less comprehensible.

I haven't been following this thread, until I saw the Vampire Weekend thing. But to me, if that sentence doesn't have an extra comma, it doesn't sound right. It's more confusing.

I actually thought in that case, you'd use a semi colon or even a colon?

[BrianD]

I don't see how an extra comma would make that any more or less comprehensible.

Neither do I. I often eat bananas and cat food for dinner. :)

[st.cronin]

I haven't been following this thread, until I saw the Vampire Weekend thing. But to me, if that sentence doesn't have an extra comma, it doesn't sound right. It's more confusing.

I actually thought in that case, you'd use a semi colon or even a colon?

I think a colon would be awkward, although technically correct. Anyway the sentence as written works perfectly.

[Passacaglia]

I guess without the comma, one might think that 'bananas and cat food' are together, so we're talking about food for bananas and cats.

[st.cronin]

I guess without the comma, one might think that 'bananas and cat food' are together, so we're talking about food for bananas and cats.

Theoretically that's true, you could construct a sentence without the comma that would be misleading. But there are numerous stylistic choices you can make to avoid that problem before you get to the question of the last comma.

[MikeVic]

If I read:
Now when you go to the grocery store later please pick up food for dinner bananas and cat food.

I'd think it says that I'd be picking up food for "dinner bananas," what ever that is.

[MikeVic]

Theoretically that's true, you could construct a sentence without the comma that would be misleading. But there are numerous stylistic choices you can make to avoid that problem before you get to the question of the last comma.

If I wrote that exact sentence, word-for-word, it would be:

Now when you go to the grocery store later, please pick up food for dinner: bananas and cat food.

But I'd probably re-arrange it if I really did write it.

[st.cronin]

I don't think that's right, that implies that you are having bananas and cat food for dinner. This would be better - When you go to the grocery store later please pick up: Food for dinner, bananas and cat food.

[cuervo72]

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Oxford comma?

[MikeVic]

Whoa wait, so we're not picking up bananas and cat food for dinner?

[MikeVic]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Oxford comma?

That was a line from a Vampire Weekend song.

[cuervo72]

Theoretically that's true, you could construct a sentence without the comma that would be misleading.

Which Quik did thirteen posts prior.

[st.cronin]

Which Quik did thirteen posts prior.

How is that sentence misleading? Unless you think that God and Ayn Rand are having babies together?

[QuikSand]

How is that sentence misleading? Unless you think that God and Ayn Rand are having babies together?

"Sir, perhaps you'd be more comfortable at one of our lower-stakes tables."

[MJ4H]

Why the fuck is "food for dinner, bananas, and cat food" so damn hard for you people? Why would we rather pull out our spleen through our nostril than put that comma in there? I honestly don't understand this.

[st.cronin]

Why the fuck is "food for dinner, bananas, and cat food" so damn hard for you people? Why would we rather pull out our spleen through our nostril than put that comma in there? I honestly don't understand this.

Commas are money, dude.

[cuervo72]

How is that sentence misleading? Unless you think that God and Ayn Rand are having babies together?

Come now, I don't think anyone implied the speaker had any siblings.

[rkmsuf]

only people trying to show off put the extra comma in there

[st.cronin]

"Sir, perhaps you'd be more comfortable at one of our lower-stakes tables."

Yeah. Probably. My final word: Grammar is not a set of rules for construction, but a set of rules for understanding. Grammar is used for reading.

[DaddyTorgo]

The AP style book may accept confusion as a standard of doing business, but us hardliners certainly don't. The serial comma is something over which I've fought kind of hardcore in my editing and teaching. There are no disadvantages to using it, but all sorts of problems can crop up when it isn't used.

The AP dropping it probably has more to do with print costs (same reason for not having two spaces after a period in print -- saves ink and paper) than grammar.

Now when you go to the grocery store later please pick up food for dinner, bananas and cat food.

i agree with NoMyths. And I'm surprised that the AP style book accepts dropping it. I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS harp on that. It's my grammar-nazi pet peeve.

[Toddzilla]

Punctuation suck's

[MikeVic]

In a listing, I agree that I like seeing that comma there. And I use it all the time. So my sentences are constructed thusly:

"My favourite things in the world are myself, my car, and my alcohol."

[rkmsuf]

that comma is gratuitous, egregious, preposterous and outrageous.

[MikeVic]

that comma is gratuitous, egregious, preposterous and outrageous.

How dare you.

[cuervo72]

He forgot lewd, lascivious, and salacious.

[rkmsuf]

He forgot lewd, lascivious, and salacious.

that comma is real and unspectacular

[MikeVic]

He forgot lewd, lascivious, and saldanacious.

:confused:

[Chief Rum]

The AP style book may accept confusion as a standard of doing business, but us hardliners certainly don't. The serial comma is something over which I've fought kind of hardcore in my editing and teaching. There are no disadvantages to using it, but all sorts of problems can crop up when it isn't used.

The AP dropping it probably has more to do with print costs (same reason for not having two spaces after a period in print -- saves ink and paper) than grammar.

Now when you go to the grocery store later please pick up food for dinner, bananas and cat food.

This doesn't occur enough for AP to care in today's computer based print world. We're not stuck using some massive space for a comma. It takes up very little room, and usually the text can be adjusted with today's computer graphic design technology. The spaces after period would be much more prevalent, though--I could see that.

No, I'm not saying their reason for doing so makes sense, whatever it is, but I am pretty sure it isn't space considerations.

[Chief Rum]

Now when you go to the grocery store later please pick up food for dinner, bananas and cat food.

Oh, and BTW, the comma is not always left out. In the case above or where clarity would become an issue, the comma is left in. Clarity in the writing is of the utmost importance to newspapers, as people who get confused reading their paper don't respond with, "I'll keep reading it until I get it," but with, "I'm going to stop reading this."

In actuality, BTW, the editor would almost certainly re-write the sentence altogether to make it more clear and avoid the situation completely.

[korme]

"Sir, perhaps you'd be more comfortable at one of our lower-stakes tables."

We call him Double Down

[korme]

...and I give thanks to my parents, God and Ayn Rand.
Devil's Advocate: To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God.

[sterlingice]

"Sir, perhaps you'd be more comfortable at one of our lower-stakes tables."

:D

From the stupid questions category- what's with the vampire references? I must have missed something

SI

[korme]

:D

From the stupid questions category- what's with the vampire references? I must have missed something

SI


Vampire Weekend has a song titled "Oxford Comma" and the first line is "Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?"

[cuervo72]

/has never heard of "Vampire Weekend" before Kurt's post in this thread

[kurtism]

/has never heard of "Vampire Weekend" before Kurt's post in this thread

Cue it up, a very catchy little tune.

[wheels]

The AP style book may accept confusion as a standard of doing business, but us hardliners certainly don't. The serial comma is something over which I've fought kind of hardcore in my editing and teaching. There are no disadvantages to using it, but all sorts of problems can crop up when it isn't used.

The AP dropping it probably has more to do with print costs (same reason for not having two spaces after a period in print -- saves ink and paper) than grammar.

For serial commas, the only real question is clarity. The comma merely serves as a separator of items in a series, and, most of the time, the final conjunction in a series provides the necessary punctuation: The American flag is red, white and blue. However, if there is the potential for confusion, then by all means the final comma should be inserted: I had orange juice, toast, and ham and eggs for breakfast. Here "ham and eggs" is considered singular, the ham and eggs are actually mixed together as one item.

Newspapers also dropped the end quotation marks at the end of a paragraph if the quote continued on in the next paragraph. It was deemed unnecessary because the quote marks began the next paragraph.

Double spaces after periods are a completely different issue. The only reason double spaces were ever used was because typewriter characters were monospaced, i.e. there was uniform space between words and letters. The space to the left and right of the letter "l" was the same as the space to the left and right of a much wider letter like "W." Typesetters felt it was necessary to insert an extra space character between sentences to avoid the text looking like one long sentence.

Current fonts used for typesetting have variable spacing between characters through kerning to account for this, and no double spaces are necessary between sentences. Double spaces just create twice as much space as the designer of the font deemed necessary.

[cuervo72]

Cue it up, a very catchy little tune.

Hmm...not bad. Had me thinking of Elvis Costello a bit.

[Galaril]

I am trying to find out if this is correct or not:

"marginally adverse effects" or seriously adverse effects"

[st.cronin]

I believe they have nearly opposite meanings. The first means slightly bad, the second means really bad.

[Galaril]

I believe they have nearly opposite meanings. The first means slightly bad, the second means really bad.

No, I got that. My worry explanation is confusing. My question wasn't about which of these was alright but instead seperately whether either was ok. I thought having the words marginally or seriously adverse effects sounded kind of bad.

[QuikSand]

Today, on public radio discussion of the latest chapter in Senator Obama's flap over Rev. Wright, we got treated to two pronunciations of the same word. From online searches, this seems to be yet another word where the previously-judged-incorrect pronunciation has won out and become the official, at least according to some sources.

Senator Obama, in rejecting some of Rev. Wright's statements, pronounced "divisive" with the short-i in the accented syllable, and then the NPR reporter shortly thereafter used the same word with the long-i.

This is (or at least was, unless the lazies have just won this one already) one of those tough words, where technically correct pronunciation (with the short-i) runs the risk of making you look, to varying audiences that include most people, either discouragingly ignorant or alarmingly effete. It's properly in the same class as some of the words I think we discussed in this thread earlier, like short-lived, forte, and perhaps others -- where even if you *know* the proper pronunciation, it might be wisest to play to the numbers and just dumb it down.

I suppose we can let history judge whether Senator Obama's decision (whether conscious or not) to stick with the highbrow pronunciation is a wise one, but I rather doubt that anyone truly believes that elections end up being decided by the tiny sliver of self-important intellectual snobs who pay attention to this sort of thing.

[Ksyrup]

This exchange between Jewel and Kurt Loder came up during a grammar discussion on another board. Funny as hell!



As you may know, Jewel wrote a book of poetry that was wildly popular--to the dismay of many English teachers, I'm sure.

Kurt Loder found some problems with it:

LODER: There's a line you have,'There are nightmares on the sidewalks/there are jokes on TV/ there are people selling thoughtlessness with such casualty.' Casualty doesn't mean that, does it? Casualty's like a guy gets his arm blown off. I mean isn't that...

JEWEL: That's a type of casualty.

LODER: What?

JEWEL: It's a type of casualty that ...

LODER: No, really. I thought you were trying to say casualness.

JEWEL: No, casualty.

LODER: Oh, OK. All right. Are you a tech person? Do you take computers on the road, do you log on, e-mail?

JEWEL: No, I'm a bit archaic. I mean, I still write everything by hand. It's quite archaic.

LODER: Wow.

JEWEL: It is wow. I'm dyslexic as heck. I mean, I just can't type well.

LODER: Really? That'd be a problem for a writer.

JEWEL: It is a bit of problem. I mean, putting the book together. Everything was done by hand. I had to recopy it legibly to get it...

LODER: That explains casualty probably.

[MJ4H]

What a prick. That usage is fine in an artistic sense as far as I'm concerned. I find it a creative way to fit her thoughts into the structure, personally. It isn't as if she was writing an essay or an article for Scientific American. Oh, wait, I mean Scientific American. I think.

[Ksyrup]

What? That is a real word with a distinct meaning that has nothing to do with what she was trying to convey!

[MJ4H]

I understand that. She used it instead of "casualness" because it fit the structure of the song. It's artistic license. Words don't have to always be used correctly and grammar doesn't always have to be perfect in art. It would be nice to know she knew what she was doing when she did it, in the sense that you need to know all of the rules and be aware you are breaking them when you do. But it is ok to break the rules in art.

[st.cronin]

Well, its not as if that's some unprecedented modification of one word type to another. Its clear what she means.

[Ksyrup]

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it didn't change the meaning of what she was trying to convey. And the fact that she has no clue just makes it that much worse. I've seen artists essentially make up words before, or add a little extra to a word to get it to fit a melody, so I know it happens. I've even seen it with grammar. Here's a good example from one of my favorite Jason Falkner songs:

Originality was never big on your list of things to be

But here, the change is to an existing word with its own meaning, AND she is clueless about it. I don't get any sense that she understands that casualty is not the same as casualness and made that choice consciously.

[MJ4H]

If she didn't know it was an alteration to the word, that is indeed a slight problem, but the evidence presented in that conversation isn't really enough to convince me of that. Making the alteration itself I am fine with and in fact think it is actually a touch clever. Nothing to get that worked up about, though, to me.

[rkmsuf]

Curt Loder is a turd.

[Ksyrup]

If she didn't know it was an alteration to the word, that is indeed a slight problem, but the evidence presented in that conversation isn't really enough to convince me of that. Making the alteration itself I am fine with and in fact think it is actually a touch clever. Nothing to get that worked up about, though, to me.

I'm not worked up about it, I just thought it was pretty funny because, unlike you, I think it's pretty clear she didn't understand what the word meant (or thought it meant casualness). She specifically said that she meant casualty and not casualness, and that getting an arm blown off is a "type of casualty." Either she means something entirely different than you and I think she does, or she's having a Paula Abdul moment.

[MJ4H]

Well Kurt Loder was sure worked up about it. And was being quite a dick about it. If he didn't have mannequin fingers shoved up his ass about the whole thing to begin with, he could've given her the benefit of the doubt and it never would've been brought up. It works as it is and is actually somewhat clever (imo). If she arrived at that accidentally, hell, some people are born with a horseshoe up their ass I guess.

[Maple Leafs]

Somebody wrote an article about us!
#99 Grammar « Stuff White People Like (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/99-grammar/)

[BishopMVP]

While helping a girl edit a paper I came across this sentence.

"The German invasion of Poland, combined with the second Sino-Japanese War, eventuated in World War II."

Ignoring the unnecessary commas, that word isn't real, right? It is listed on dictionary.com - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eventuated - and I understand the intent, so am I the one wrong here?

[MikeVic]

I'm going to use that word now.

[korme]

Somebody wrote an article about us!
#99 Grammar « Stuff White People Like (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/99-grammar/)

I laughed many a time, because I am guilty of many of those things.

[st.cronin]

"He was always getting into trouble."
"He was always getting in trouble."
"He was always getting in to trouble."

Which is preferable?

[Maple Leafs]

Which is preferable?
The first rule of clear writing is to always use as few words as possible.

So in your case, you'd go with:
"Him = trouble"

[korme]

"He was always getting into trouble."
"He was always getting in trouble."
"He was always getting in to trouble."

Which is preferable?


i'm picking 3

[QuikSand]

"He was always getting into trouble."
"He was always getting in trouble."
"He was always getting in to trouble."

Which is preferable?

I prefer #1. I have heard both the first and second used colloquially, and once a phrase takes on idiomatic status, grammar really no longer applies. I think #3 is simply incorrect.

[korme]

I'd argue that if you break it down "in to" seems most appropriate. Then again, that is just going off of instincts.