Grammar Police - Graduate School

[korme]

All right, nerds for grammar. In the following sentence, fill in the missing punctuation marks.

"It is your obligation as a writer to provide sufficient specific supporting details evidence and argumentation to persuade your reader what you claim is true."

[dacman]

It is your obligation as a writer to provide sufficient, specific, supporting details; evidence; and argumentation to persuade your reader what you claim is true.

[korme]

Why does evidence garner a semi-colon?

[RPI-Fan]

"It is your obligation, as a writer, to provide sufficient specific supporting details, evidence, and argumentation to persuade your reader what you claim is true."

dacman put the semicolons in to denote the series-within-a-series of "sufficient, specific, supporting". However, I didn't really find that necessary.

[MJ4H]

It is your obligation as a writer to provide sufficient specific supporting details, evidence, and argumentation to persuade your reader what you claim is true.

[dacman]

Whereas I find setting off "as a writer" with commas completely unnecessary. Frankly there probably isn't a singular correct answer for this one. It's largely a matter of style.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by dacman

Whereas I find setting off "as a writer" with commas completely unnecessary. Frankly there probably isn't a singular correct answer for this one. It's largely a matter of style.

Yep, I'm a comma fiend.

[QuikSand]

I don't think the phrase "as a writer" is a true appositive (the case where you are to set it off with commas before) here, and I'd leave them out myself. There might be a formal rule in place governing when to use the commas, but I'd be willing to let it slide either way, and I'm obviously a grammar nazi.

[QuikSand]

Time intervals tend to be a source of confusion:

Bi = two
Semi = half

If you get a bill every six months, that's semiannually, not biennially (once every two years).

If The Sporting News is now distributed every two weeks, it's (sort of) a semi-monthly, not a bi-monthly. A bi-monthly comes out 6 times a year.


Yes, this is yet another case where the dictionaries have in part conceded the point to the lazy masses, and a number of them will now include the previously unacceptable definition as acceptable. It's the same old debate, hashed out time and time again.

Just for the purists out there, we really do have two separate words (or prefixes) for these two separate concepts, and a language is better for having them, in concept.

[Kodos]

Here's an early Christmas present:

"Our team was really dominant today..." is the correct form of dominate to use in this sort of statement. I always want to punch folks who use "dominate" in that context.

[Bad-example]

Not directed at anyone in particular, but:

Can you spell the word "finite"? Sure, most everyone can spell the word "finite".

Then you should not have any trouble in the future spelling the word definitely.

Thanks for your time.

[MrDNA]

Has anyone posted rediculous yet? That drives me nuts.

[QuikSand]

Well, it's an old thread. The original idea was to try to get past the fairly mundane stuff and get to things where the correct/preferred usage might actually be useful to someone who would be inclined to read a thread like this. But that's five or six pages ago, so I guess all bets are off by now. *shurg*

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by original thread starter

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.

Just for reference, in case this thread for some reason regains life...

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

You know the difference between "its" and "it's" and between "dominant" and "dominate." So, there's no need to cover that.

Originally Posted by Kodos

Here's an early Christmas present:

"Our team was really dominant today..." is the correct form of dominate to use in this sort of statement. I always want to punch folks who use "dominate" in that context.

Out of the thread, Kodos backs.

[st.cronin]

I have a hard time remembering which of bi/semi is correct.

[albionmoonlight]

The internet seems split on this one. Help me out here:

"The government makes several arguments in support of the district court, none of which address/addresses the fundamental infirmity of . . . "

Is none singular or plural? By ear, I can hear it both ways:

"None of the cookies are left"
"None of the cake is left"

But that also seems like we are just using the singular or plural of the object of "of," which stikes me as violating all sorts of fundamental rules.

One answer might be to replace "none" with "not one," but that runs into problems when you try to construct sentences like "Not one of the cake is left."

So, is none singular or plural or both? And, if it is both, then what it is doing in the sentence above regarding district courts?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I've always gone by none = not one = singular. But I'll defer to QS.

[sterlingice]

What's with "an historical" gaining popularity? I've seen this a lot more over the last year or two and saw it again on The Daily Show yesterday or maybe two days ago. What part of "historical" starts with a vowel?

SI

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The internet seems split on this one. Help me out here:

"The government makes several arguments in support of the district court, none of which address/addresses the fundamental infirmity of . . . "

I believe the correct word in this example is address because you are talking about "the arguments" and not "the argument." One way I figure it out is by shortening the sentence down to its core parts: the arguments...address or the arguments...addresses and it's clear that the former is the correct word for your example.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Do you get paid ten dollars A hour?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by samifan24

I believe the correct word in this example is address because you are talking about "the arguments" and not "the argument." One way I figure it out is by shortening the sentence down to its core parts: the arguments...address or the arguments...addresses and it's clear that the former is the correct word for your example.

I could be wrong but the subject of the sentence is none.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Do you get paid ten dollars A hour?

The reason hour get "an" before is because the "h" is silent so the vowel sound is the first in the word. However, the "h" in historical is not silent at all

SI

[QuikSand]

My "ear" says that none doesn't fit either the singular or plural mold, and instead seems to define a subset of the original -- so you connect to the nature of the original. When it's essentially none of the arguments or none of the cookies, you employ the plural. When it's essentially none of the cake, you employ the singular.

[QuikSand]

from Subject and Verb Agreement | Grammar Rules

With words that indicate portions—percent, fraction, part, majority, some, all, none, remainder, and so forth —look at the noun in your of phrase (object of the preposition) to determine whether to use a singular or plural verb. If the object of the preposition is singular, use a singular verb. If the object of the preposition is plural, use a plural verb.


...though this is not exactly a uniform view, even that page concedes. I still thin it works best.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I could be wrong but the subject of the sentence is none.

Yes, I know but none = the arguments in this sentence. If you delete everything before none, the sentence doesn't make sense, so you need none to refer back to the arguments, hence my reason for shortening the sentence to determine which word I thought was appropriate.

[albionmoonlight]

address it is, then.

Thanks, guys.

[BrianD]

Is it proper to use the word "nor" in a sentence without "neither" also being in the sentence? Can:

"Neither Bob nor Alice wanted to go to the store"

be shortened to:

"Bob nor Alice wanted to go to the store"

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Is it proper to use the word "nor" in a sentence without "neither" also being in the sentence? Can:

"Neither Bob nor Alice wanted to go to the store"

be shortened to:

"Bob nor Alice wanted to go to the store"

No, I don't think you can do that because you can't have one without the other. I could be wrong, though.

[BrianD]

So is it fair so say you can drop the "either" in an "either - or" sentence, but not the "neither" in a "neither - nor"? I've always thought this to be the case, but I've seen a bunch of dropped "neither" lately and was curious.

[DanGarion]

So I can't say... "I have never gone to England, nor have I gone Ireland..."?

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

So I can't say... "I have never gone to England, nor have I gone Ireland..."?

Yeah I think you can say that. I'm not sure on the rules behind it but my impression of using "nor" was that you have to have a phrase before it. What I mean is that I don't think you can use "nor" as a substitute for "or" without including a phrase before "nor." The example "Bob nor Alice wanted to go to the store" doesn't work because we don't have a phrase before "nor," we just have a person's name. In the "Bob nor Alice" example, I think you have to eiter have to have "neither" if you want "nor" if you have to lose "nor" altogether. Does that make any sense?

[samifan24]

Which is correct?

Have you heard of _____ before?

-or-

Had you heard of _____ before?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Which is correct?

Have you heard of _____ before?

-or-

Had you heard of _____ before?

Depends on if the person you are asking about is dead or not...

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I've been wrong in here before, so caveat emptor, but my thinking is that if the "heard" part takes place in the past (Had you heard of the impending market collapse before last November?) you use had, whereas if it is in the present ("have you heard that the stock market is down 200 points today?) you use have.

[QuikSand]

Ronnie has that in hand.

[Toddzilla]

I say "I'm feeling nauseated"
She says "I feel nauseous"

I take that to mean that I feel sick to my stomach, whereas she makes others feel sick to their stomach.
She says both phrases mean the same thing.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I've been wrong in here before, so caveat emptor, but my thinking is that if the "heard" part takes place in the past (Had you heard of the impending market collapse before last November?) you use had, whereas if it is in the present ("have you heard that the stock market is down 200 points today?) you use have.

But one could use the "had you heard that the stock market is down 200 points today?" and still be right, depending on if the person asking the question assumed that the person they were asking knew the information earlier then at that exact moment of questioning. Today is a very broad term of time.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I say "I'm feeling nauseated"
She says "I feel nauseous"

I take that to mean that I feel sick to my stomach, whereas she makes others feel sick to their stomach.
She says both phrases mean the same thing.

I think this one has slipped away... enough people use "nauseous" to mean "sick to my stomach" that it's too common to fight.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

But one could use the "had you heard that the stock market is down 200 points today?" and still be right, depending on if the person asking the question assumed that the person they were asking knew the information earlier then at that exact moment of questioning. Today is a very broad term of time.

Metaphysics is down the hall, buddy, this is English.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I meant present to mean "this very moment" and today to indicate the market's movement.

[samifan24]

My thinking was in asking "have you heard" and "had you heard" you've both talking about something that was heard in the past, no doubt, but does that make them interchangeable?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by samifan24

My thinking was in asking "have you heard" and "had you heard" you've both talking about something that was heard in the past, no doubt, but does that make them interchangeable?

But "had you heard" is not simply in the past -- it's the past in terms of another point in time, also in the past.

[Noop]

My professor would love Quiksand. I am confident she would have an orgasm discussing grammar with you.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Reading this thread has actually got me interested in taking a grammar course sometime next year. Would love to brush up on everything and it fits a degree requirement as well.

[MJ4H]

i agree grammar is rulez

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

But "had you heard" is not simply in the past -- it's the past in terms of another point in time, also in the past.

So you're saying:

"Have you heard?" - Right now only and coming up for the first time

"Had you heard?" - Always in the past and coming up again

Is that it?

[JediKooter]

I would use "Had you heard" like this: "Had you heard that we would be meeting at 3 instead of 4, you would not have been late."

"Have you heard": "Have you heard that the meeting has been changed from 3 to 4? So don't be late."

[MJ4H]

Had you heard of that book before you saw the movie?

as opposed to

Have you heard of that book? (before now)

[lordscarlet]

Lately I have noticed that FOFC needs a friendly reminder. Please take notes if you are having trouble.

They're - A contraction for "They are."
"I heard they're taking a trip to the beach this weekend."

Their - A form of the possessive case of "they."
"I like their house because it has a very nice yard."

There - There are a lot of options here, but lets go with the pronoun, meaning "that place."
"I like to go there for ice cream."