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, not 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]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Pictures are hung. People are hanged.

This could go badly from here.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This could go badly from here.

Sorry, just something an English professor once said to me. Stuck with me ever since.

[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/d.../d0082859.html

[Maple Leafs]

Presently means "soon", not "now".

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Presently means "soon", not "now".

[QuikSand]

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

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 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prznt-l)
adv.

1. In a short time; soon: She will arrive presently.
2. Usage Problem. At this time or period; now: He is presently staying with us.
3. 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 General Walters is... presently the United States Ambassador to the United Nations 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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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

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]

Originally Posted by RadioFriendlyUnitShifter

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

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

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

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 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kpl)
n.

1. Two items of the same kind; a pair.
2. Something that joins or connects two things together; a link.
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
   1. Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.
   2. Two people together.
4. Informal. A few; several: a couple of days.
5. 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]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

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]

Originally Posted by 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/d.../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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

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/nation...ing050802.html
---

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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]

Originally Posted by Fritz

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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

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]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'll be happy when it's on Wheel of Fortune.

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

PHRASE
RSTLNE CMD A

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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.../mideng-parsed

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

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yeah, and take a look at Chaucer:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin.../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]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

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]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

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?