Grammar Police - Graduate School

[Ksyrup]

Really, AP?

It was an impressive -- and unexpected -- offensive effort by the 10th-seeded Seminoles, who put the Irish in a big hole with seven 3-pointers in the first half and led by as much as 23.

[CraigSca]

My local bank has a sign out front saying the following: "ATM fee's driving you nuts?" That's verbatim - they then continue saying that PNC Bank doesn't charge fees, with the obligatory apostrophe between the last "e" and the "s".

This drove me crazy and, as of yesterday, I finally let them know.

[Ksyrup]

But the fees are doing the driving, so that's possessive.

[Ksyrup]

Time.com sentence fragment fail:

The problem is the economy is based on confidence, which is what we don't have right now. And if everyone thinks we are headed back into a recession. Then that's how they will act.

[cuervo72]

Incorrect: "whole heartily"
Correct: wholeheartedly

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Incorrect: "whole heartily"
Correct: wholeheartedly

that should be for the extreme-level course

[cuervo72]

Grammar 101: Queue vs. Cue « Beyond the Rhetoric

[JediKooter]

Cue and queue never tripped me up. Same with due and do. I'll never understand how then and than get so brutally murdered, day in and day out by so many people.

[cuervo72]

Correct: "suffice it to say"
Not as much: "suffice to say"

I've seen this pop one up a few times recently, both in conversations and in blogs.

[dawgfan]

One would think that a guy doing a Stanford football blog for ESPN would have better understanding of proper grammar:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_...about-stanford

...that big haas...

You mean "hoss"?

You know DeCastro would of.

"Of" what?

[k0ruptr]

Nope, it's ESPN.

[Ksyrup]

I'm not sure this is exactly the thread to put this in - I swear there's one devoted to bad journalism, but I can't find it - but this is good enough anyway.

This is from a new story about that LA teacher arrested for sexually abusing elementary school students. Apparently they are now investigating another teacher after someone filed a complaint. This is how it was written:

A 10-year-old girl claimed her elementary school teacher tried to fondle her - 18 years ago.

[MIJB#19]

Did she claim it 18 years ago or did the fondling happen 18 years ago? At least we know for sure it happened eight years before she was born.

[Ksyrup]

There is so much wrong with that sentence I can't believe someone was able to write it.

[sterlingice]

So does that mean she fondled the mom many years ago?

SI

[DanGarion]

Thought you guys might like this.

20 Common Grammar Mistakes That (Almost) Everyone Makes | LitReactor

[Matthean]

[sterlingice]

My wife is an editor and someone on Facebook suggested she put that up in her office.

SI

[Matthean]

15 Grammar Goofs That Make You Look Silly | Copyblogger

[sterlingice]

Unfortunately, that is much less fun than The Oatmeal

SI

[Passacaglia]

That's what they say | Michigan Today

[Dutch]

My wife just posted this one on FB and I immediately thought of this thread.

[corbes]

Use "because" when you want to show a causal relationship between two concepts, and use "since" when you want to show a temporal relationship. Although often used interchangeably, the use of "since" to show causation results in ambiguous sentences. To wit:

"Since I read this thread, I thought I would add this comment." What I really mean here is that I thought about adding this comment because I read this thread. The point of the sentence would have been brought out better by clarifying that the relationship between the two thoughts was causal rather than temporal.

"Since I have not finished my sandwich, you may have the rest." What I really mean here is that you can have the rest of my sandwich because I did not finish it. Again, the relationship between the two thoughts is better characterized as causal rather than temporal.

"Since I was born, the Philadelphia Flyers have not won the Stanley Cup." This is the proper use of since; the Flyers' playoff history is not causally related to my birth.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by corbes

Use "because" when you want to show a causal relationship between two concepts, and use "since" when you want to show a temporal relationship. Although often used interchangeably, the use of "since" to show causation results in ambiguous sentences. To wit:

"Since I read this thread, I thought I would add this comment." What I really mean here is that I thought about adding this comment because I read this thread. The point of the sentence would have been brought out better by clarifying that the relationship between the two thoughts was causal rather than temporal.

"Since I have not finished my sandwich, you may have the rest." What I really mean here is that you can have the rest of my sandwich because I did not finish it. Again, the relationship between the two thoughts is better characterized as causal rather than temporal.

"Since I was born, the Philadelphia Flyers have not won the Stanley Cup." This is the proper use of since; the Flyers' playoff history is not causally related to my birth.

This one is true, but need not always be adhered to. There are plenty of uses of "since" which mean "because" and are not ambiguous, since context does not always allow for a temporal relationship. ( )

[gstelmack]

Not grammar, but close enough for this thread to be the best place:

11 words adults just can't spell | HLNtv.com

[Dutch]

I think we have already seen this one in this thread but here we go again!

Colo. shooting suspect James Holmes' lawyers: He's mentally ill - CBS News

Holmes is accused of going on a July 20 shooting rampage at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, killing 12 people dead and injuring 58 others.

Is this something we inadvertantly picked up from those old RAID commercials??? ("Kills bugs dead")

[sterlingice]

He's more effective than those people who kill 12 people alive?

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

He's more effective than those people who kill 12 people alive?

SI

Are you asking if redundancy is better than contradiction? I don't disagree!

[britrock88]

From the Fox News article about the note written on 9/11 by a man trapped in one of the towers to his wife, a schoolteacher...

Randy had phoned Denise before writing the note at the school where she teaches first grade...

Sigh.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay grammar geeks, help me out here. Saw the quoted bit in a wire service story tonight.

New York will have the most intense storm surge if Sandy comes ashore anywhere in New Jersey, Uccellini said. Only if it arrives farther south, such as Delaware, will New York see a slightly, only slightly, smaller storm surge.

Is the last sentence punctuated properly? Or maybe my question is really whether the punctuation optimal?

To my eye that just looks like an overuse of commas. Was there another way to punctuate this correctly and reduce the commas?

[cuervo72]

I might consider substituting some dashes, a la: "farther south - such as Delaware - will". But I sometimes do some funny things with punctuation.

[Antmeister]

Ugh. I don't consider myself a grammar geek, but I would have definitely punctuated that sentence a bit differently.

"New York will have the most intense storm surge if Sandy comes ashore anywhere in New Jersey", Uccellini said. Only if it arrives farther south (such as Delaware), will New York see a slightly (only slightly) smaller storm surge.

But this is just for readability purposes. I am also not sure if this is a direct quote from Uccelini, so I could be wrong for putting quotes around the first part.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I was thinking maybe

"Only if it arrives farther south, such as Delaware, will New York see a slightly - but only slightly - smaller storm surge."

edit: Or better yet, "Only if it arrives farther south, such as Delaware, will New York see a marginally smaller storm surge."

[britrock88]

Diction is the larger problem with that sentence.

"New York may see a slightly smaller storm surge, however, if Sandy arrives in Delaware or otherwise farther south."

[sterlingice]

The "slightly, but only slightly" is just too cumbersome and needs to be recast

SI

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I was thinking maybe

"Only if it arrives farther south, such as Delaware, will New York see a slightly - but only slightly - smaller storm surge."

edit: Or better yet, "Only if it arrives farther south, such as Delaware, will New York see a marginally smaller storm surge."

Both of yours are far preferable, I like the first better, but I criminally overuse dashes for effect this way.

[cuervo72]

There seems to be a recent trend of using "que" in place of "queue" or even "cue." I blame the illegals.

[stevew]

Is gotten a word? I try to use received in writing but gotten comes out in speech sometimes.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Both of yours are far preferable, I like the first better, but I criminally overuse dashes for effect this way.

Likewise, I criminally overuse side thoughts in paratheses all the time.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is gotten a word? I try to use received in writing but gotten comes out in speech sometimes.

I think it is...

"I am getting my paycheck."
"I got my paycheck."
"I had gotten my paycheck."

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Likewise, I criminally overuse side thoughts in parentheses all the time.

I think that's a programmer thing where you set apart thoughts in sequences in parens.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think that's a programmer thing where you set apart thoughts in sequences in parens.

SI

Yeah { (Thoughts) itBecomes(annoying, habitual) };

[sterlingice]

Exactly!

I still describe to most people who ask about my clothes (not many) that my morning routine for dressing myself is as follows:

If shirt.color() = pants.color()
then redraw(shirt)

Since I only have one of each color (for the most part), it works. Otherwise, it'd have to be a while loop.

SI

[Passacaglia]

My 2-year old son has a little game he plays, where he pretend his toy duck is crying, and he says to it, "don't be crying." Someone called it grammatically incorrect, but I figured it was technically fine, just uncommon usage. Thoughts?

[QuikSand]

When used by adults, it's usually gathered up as either loose usage, or local color (there's a southern/racial element in play there).

[albionmoonlight]

Situation:

Guy gets sentenced. At his sentencing, there is a recommended punishment range. We appeal. We win, so he has to be re-sentenced. Between the time of our appeal and his re-sentencing, unrelated changes in the law lowered his recommended punishment range. The sentencing court decides to increase his sentence more than we think it should. We appeal again. I am writing that appeal.

If you could follow that, here is my question. I am trying to make the point that if the sentencing range had stayed the same (i.e. not been lowered for unrelated reasons), it would be easier to see why the sentencing court made a mistake in increasing his sentence.

The sentencing I am writing is "At the re-sentencing, if Mr. X's recommended range would have remained at [high], then the sentencing court would have understood [not to increase it.]"

I, however, know very little about the subjunctive. So I am dealing with something theoretical that would have happened in the past. Is my verb usage above--would have remained and then followed by would have understood--correct? It sounds right to me, but I thought that I'd run it by you guys because I really don't know the rule here so much as just going by ear.

[QuikSand]

I think I'd prefer:

At the re-sentencing, had Mr. X's recommended range remained at [high], then the sentencing court would have understood [not to increase it.]

Your form is fine above, I'm just eliminating a redundancy since the sentence is already fairly tough to understand (at least for us unwashed lay people).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think I'd prefer:

At the re-sentencing, had Mr. X's recommended range remained at [high], then the sentencing court would have understood [not to increase it.]

Your form is fine above, I'm just eliminating a redundancy since the sentence is already fairly tough to understand (at least for us unwashed lay people).

Thank you. A lot. Much better sentence.

[Glengoyne]

Cool, now we get to add Law school to the thread title.

[Galaxy]

Friend and I are debating this one. Is it, "I have read (insert title of book),"
"I'd read (insert title of book)," or "I read (insert title of book)?"

Also, when you end the sentence with-and I'm going back to the title of the book-a question mark or exclamation point, do you put the question mark or exclamation point inside or outside the quotes?