Grammar Police - Graduate School

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

/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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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]

Originally Posted by JW

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]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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 [/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]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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"?