My name is Floyd, and I...am a grammar douche. Look, I'm going to have to bug out of here in a few minutes to catch my other 12-step-group, because of how I'm also hooked on phonics.
The brilliant sitcom How I Met Your Mother had an episode earlier this season in which they introduced the main character's college girlfriend, whom everyone described as a douche, by which they meant an overbearing pompous know-it-all. She's the kind of person who knows all the vineyards in a particular region of Bordeaux and laughs at you if you order a merlot. Who goes to films. Who for gawd's sake knows the difference between an armoire and a goddamn dresser.
Yeah, I'm kind of that way about grammar.
I've claimed, trying to explain what I can't seem to help, that it's because I went to graduate school in English, but that's just a hopeless pathetic lie. I know a lot of people with degrees in English and they're not like this. It's as if it actually hurts me when someone splices two sentences together with a comma. I want to physically harm sentences where the subject and verb disagree. It's not all--or even mostly--about correctness; it's also about elegance and expressiveness. If the subjunctive were a woman, I'd marry her.
I try--honestly, I do--not to be such a douche. I remind myself that grammar is a social construct, that dangling a modifier is not as bad as Michael Jackson dangling a baby off a balcony. A perhaps overly-heavy reliance on the passive voice does not make one ipso facto evil or even slightly naughty. As Vampire Weekend so aptly puts it, "Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?"
I do. God help me, I do. I give a fuck about an Oxford comma, and about when to use an ellipsis; I give a fuck about when to use parentheses and when to use dashes. (I'd better; I use a lot of both.) I've dreamt of semicolons. (They're what you're left with after a bowel resection.) If I meet Emily Dickinson in the afterlife, I will fall to her feet and worship her for her use of the dash. (And also because her poetry kicked ass.)
The whole being-a-grammar-douche thing makes people nervous. "Is he judging my writing? Did I forget a comma splice?" (Yes, and yeah, you did.) But I get style; I get that you may know the rules and ignore them; I do it myself, all over the place. It'd be a boring-ass world if everyone wrote in Standard English all the time everywhere. I like prose that sounds like conversation, with the occasional grammatical tic thrown in for, like, a bit of spice.
And even a grammar douche can come up with some solecisms that, when he notices them later, make his pancreas itch and make him want to pluck his eyes out. (And I am that he, and him is me.) I do--oh, my dear gawd, I do--try to find and correct them before anyone else sees them, because I find them embarrassing as hell, but you know what? I can't find all of them. (Especially when commenting on someone else's posts on OS, where you cannot edit; who the hell thought that was a great idea?) So you'd think I'd just relax, wouldn't you? You'd think I'd just accept, in a grown-up kinda way, that we are an imperfect species, that writing came late in our evolution and that we make mistakes.
Yeah, no.
I flat-out love this language we speak. Perhaps, had I been born German or French I'd feel the same way about those languages, but when I learned them, it was not much different from learning the computer languages I work and have worked with: they seemed to me artificial and dry, and to my great sadness, I remember very little of either and never really got good enough at them to see the poetry. But English...English is huge and silly and ridiculous and taunts and tantalizes you with stupid rules that make no sense, that change constantly and that you sometimes have to break to make your point--or just to make your point better. It's like the craziest person you ever loved; you'll spend your life figuring it out, and it'll keep surprising you even after you think you've got it pegged. The only thing that kind of redeems my shameful douche-iness is that the language is a living thing that I love in my own douche-y way.
You can't love what you don't know. If you don't know grammar, you don't know English.
And now I really must run to the Hooked On Phonics group. If you're late, you miss the Bavarian Cream doughnuts.


Salon.com
Comments
meet
Jodi_Kasten
I would kindly ask that you refer to me as a "SNOOT."
(thumbified because Oxford commas make me want to beat people with sticks until candy comes out)
I have a couple graduate degrees in English and am not a good grammarian. I avoided those classes. It shows so be kind. I think I am a good rhetorician which I value above grammar. The only time I correct someone's grammar is if they are being mean to someone else so the correction is meant to be a weapon. That is not nice of me at all, but in all honesty that is how most people see the correction of grammar. They do NOT appreciate it.
English changes over time -- so glad you recognized it as living.
As for me, I spent 6 years proofreading ads at a newspaper. These days I couldn't care less about grammar or punctuation. Heck I probably write poorly as a subconscious rebellion against that job.
"If the subjunctive were a woman, I'd marry her."
It is one of my worst habits. I baste stuff together, like a seamstress, to see how it fits, but forget to pull out the basting threads when the garment is finished.
Irregardless, I thinks me gets the point across.
Signed
Grammer fool
Luckily, I bill them by the hour, so cool.
Geoff, I will have you know that it's been years since I took the verb in "Time to make to the doughnuts" in the colloquial sense. And anyway, those nuns have forgiven me, so perhaps you should too.
Steve Blevins: I've only been posting for the last month or so. Also, I hide under rocks a lot. It's a little damp, but I have many insect pets.
OEsheepdog: I will write "donuts" without quotation marks when...um...well, a long time from now, is when, and probably only after I'm dead and communicating on some kid's Ouija board.
consonantsandvowels: Heaven for climate, hell for company. We're all sinners, even grammar douches. My point is just that the sinning is more fun--and usually better--when you know you're sinning.
And yes, we hate those people.
Jodi Kasten, I will be happy to refer to you as a SNOOT--clearly you've read David Foster Wallace's awesome piece on the subject. (I wrote a post about reading him a few weeks ago.) (Yes, I am a blog-whore, but in my defense, I'm stylin' in the fishnets.)
Dorinda, most English departments--no matter what those who haven't been in them think--don't teach grammar. I learned much of what I know from Latin classes, and applied it to the language I actually speak and write in.
Not split infinitives, though, Mumbletypeg. I like to boldly go where no 19th century grammarian has gone before.
Nora, I've read your work. You totally know grammar, you just don't know the technical terms for what you know. And you definitely know English. And it's good that your relationship with English is sexual. It's easily bored and leaves those who just want to be friends.
Freaky Troll Supermodel (and may I just take a moment to admire your user name?) (and it's done), just like Dorinda, I'll generally only be grammatically mean to people I don't much like. She's right: it's not nice, but hey, if you haven't got anything nice to say, come sit by me.
I simply can't understand why the first group can't loosen up, and the second group better educate themselves. Such a simple thing, and my life would be so much easier!
;-)
You have a very nice style with your writing. I'm rating this even though you wrote 12 instead of twelve in your opening paragraph:)
O'Really: Young lady, a dangling participle is no laughing matter; it requires immediate treatment by a grammarian.
Bill Beck: Nice man; leave me to try to pun on Massengill. Which I can't.
cartouche, All your sentences are very fashionable and color-coordinated.
Roger: Well, you know, some of us follow the zero-to-nine rule. And then there are the rest of you, whom we call heretics.
(Oh, the monster wasn't the hero? Then how come they named the movie after it?)
ocularnervosa, after six years of proofing ads, I'm surprised you still want to read, much less care about punctuation. And also that you never killed an advertiser. (If you did, congratulations on the not-getting-caught.)
montanarose, thanks for the information; Sister Bernadette (or, at any rate, her book) is in my Amazon cart as of two minutes ago.
Cindy Ross: there's enough grammar douche here for all of you. My douchery is large; it contains multitudes.
And yes, fragments are delicious. I like to grind them up and sprinkle them on my verb-shake.
I am heading over to read the pun-ctuation party. Even though people here apparently expect me work. Hee! Silly people here.
Nice to meet you.
I think I use too many commas, too. Glad to meet another Chicago OS'er.
Having gone to graduate school for English, I've found that grammar is a lot more subjective than people (including a lot of teachers) think it is. That is why publishing places choose specific reference books to use as standards.
Aside from structural mistakes (comma splices etc.) a lot of stuff is actually more like Psychology schools. A lot of people (US English Teachers mostly) buy the MLA's choice of standards, but they are by far not the only legit group that have preferences. I've seen English teachers refuse to look at differing grammar books... like they were vampires getting a bible waved at them.
Grammar is a function of writing down spoken language, in our case. Written English is phonetic (as opposed to a symbolic language like written Chinese). Commas (and most other punctuation) are pauses for emphasis in spoken language. Their use is to set of important words from the rest of the sentence (with semi-colons, colon etc. being longer pauses for greater effect).
We parse writing through our speaking voice. Sentence structure and word placement are a function of (hopefully) intent and planning of our message.
For Example:
A list of items...
1.) I like blue, green, purple and orange.
2.)I like blue, green, purple, and orange.
Most people will have learned one or the other as correct.
They are both right. They mean 2 different things. The first stresses orange a little with the "and." The second one stresses orange even more (the extra comma pause when reading aloud).
Also correct, but much more rarely seen in grammar books:
I like blue, green, purple, orange. (No stress on the orange at all.)
I like blue, green, purple... orange. ( Person is fishing for the last color).
I bet everyone in the comments learned one of the first 2 are "correct." I bet it isn't all the same one too.
The comma splice is wrong because we merely want a longer pause between 2 complete ideas in spoken English (to set them strongly apart). That's all it is, more effective verbal communication.
Most structural "corrections" are just indications that the writing could be more effective... rather than it is WRONG!!!!?!!! That attitude just creates confrontation. Better writing is not about right and wrong, but rather about being more clear and getting information across in better density per word.
Author's intent can actually trump about 80% of grammar douche complaints. (If it is really intent, rather than just what turned up after someone was done scribbling.)
People should chill out a bit. English experts can get hit hard when they find out their "right" answer is a minority opinion... or even worse... regional. I saw a fistfight once at a national conference back when I was a teacher... over a grammar point where they were both right depending on the context of the phrase too.
Grammar is a set of guidelines, more than a set of rules.
Sorry for dumping a wall of text on your blog.
-T
P.S. The passive voice is a valid voice to write in. American English is too pushy using the active voice all the time. ...like having to listen to Gen. Patton all the time.
Mr. Mustard, I'm, as always, honored when you drop by.
Laurel, Not Lauren: Erm...it's a temptation, but it's in the damn title, you know?
Cindy Ross, you may feel free to stand under my streetlight anytime. And I'm not! using! periods! after! each! word! Those are exclamation points.
Also? You may hate my introducing the next sentence with "Also?"
Who among us has no sin?
Maria Stuart: sadly, knowing how properly to use the semicolon (see what you get when you don't split infinitives?) is my one admirable trait. Beyond that, it's all evil and unpleasant gastric noises as far as the eye can see.
hyblaean-Julie: it's been weeks since I've spontaneously combusted. I think it's because of how I quit drinking lighter fluid straight from the can.
Sheldon: fucktard, douche...can't we all just get along? Nice to meet you as well, though it's not the first time for me, since I've had the pleasure of reading a number of your posts since I first came here last month.
neilpaul: ah, the weird syntactic devices; I know (and love) them well. Though it's my contention that the rest of the world is weird for not using them.
Wow, now I see why you were heading off to a meeting. I can't remember the last time my pancreas itched in several pronouns at a time. At least you have admitted your powerlessness and that's a great first step. Hang in there.
Traigus: you're a Descriptivist, and believe that grammar is about capturing and describing how people talk. Prescriptivists--or, you know, grammar douches--beg to differ. My argument would be that without a net, tennis is one boring-ass game. (Well, even more boring-ass.) (The David Foster Wallace essay, "Authority and American Usage," which is in I want to say Consider The Lobster, goes into the two schools and their differences at length.) It would be stupid to say you're wrong, but I would say that I disagree with you.
And the problem with the passive voice is that it's a little bureaucratic, and allows people to evade responsibility for their actions: "Mistakes were made." Oh, yeah? By whom? I prefer: "I fucked up." Oh. Okay, then. Thanks. Now we know whom to shoot.
Hmm. Reconsidering my dislike of the passive voice.
LuluAndPhoebe: you're not in the tiniest bit of trouble. I only bite the hand that feed me.
>>I came back here to freshen up and now I feel so passive voiced and dirty.
You're welcome.
Mal Beck: You made it through the post; now it's time to get some of the wine you're honoring with your user name. But then, when isn't it?
Trouble is, my school covers the history and future of an evolving language. Yours (You seem to be a Strict Constructivist, but I may have you pegged wrong) tries to nail it to a board like a specimen in a butterfly collection... dead and static. It is a result of the industrial revolution and a bunch of motivated people in England trying to scientifically nail down language with easily printable books (with the OED being the most famous example of a project that tries to operate with both sides). The OED is a tool, not a book of answers, that is why it has all of those usage citations in every definition. We can see, all in one place how the rules change.
The funny thing is the British and US constructivists hate each other. Comes from the fact, of course, the US constructivist are using a bastardized version of English.
I can buy it from the British. But it is hard to take US constructivists seriously. It takes a special kind of wooden head to stand there with a serious look and say a modified version of someone else's language and rules... is the only true and right version. (Kind of like AP style is bastardized Chicago style.)
Your tennis net comparison is pretty off-base. Strict constructivist grammarians are more like the rules committees for the pro tennis circuits. People who argue about the allowed composition of the net, how much give it should have, and how high and tight it should be.
Somewhere in there many of them lose what it means to actually play/watch tennis.
Who is more right about what makes "enjoyable and effective tennis" 3 million fans or a judge that disqualifies a player because she is wearing non-approved shoes?
Strict Constructionist Grammarians have lost what grammar is for. They also rule the majority of US Public College / University English programs... driving away students that could write better, but are merely told they are wrong.
That's why you get to be a grammar douche instead of someone that known for helping others write better. In the end, we both strive for getting people to much the same area... better writing. People don't dread my appearance in their comment threads as much, except maybe Gwool.
Even though I'm not a grammar expert, it doesn't mean that I'm not not nit-picky. I have pet-peeves about things like the use of the wrong homonym and incorrect use of I/me/myself.
Go ahead... eviscerate me. I have it coming.
You know, I'm kind of amazed that people whose writing I quite like think they write ungrammatically or are self-conscious about their writing. I know, I know, it's a touchy subject, but truthfully, those of you whose writing I've read before have impressed me mightily.
Loved this.
I'm glad you liked the italics, O'Really. I generally prefer to lounge around in boldface--the italics are a little scratchy, I think--but to each his or her own.
meet
Bobby G!
Rated
I believe we have been directed to be kinda pissed off about it.
There are times when passive voice is very useful, and I get supremely pissed off when the MS Word program tells me not to use it, simply because it's a passive. It's useful when the important point is the action, not the person who did the action. Of course it can be overused. (Or should I say, "Of course people can overuse it?") ;)
Our definition of "good grammar" is a moving target. The preposition at the end of a sentence rule is a famous case in point; English is a Germanic language, and prepositions at the ends of sentences are a hallmark of Germanic languages. In Romance languages, they are an impossibility. An attitude that Latin was a superior language led to the enshrinement of certain elements of Latin grammar in English. Result: "A preposition at the end of a sentence is something up with which I shall not put."
Prescriptive grammar has also given us the phenomenon of overcorrection; so many people who really should know better insist on saying and writing things like "The president spoke with my wife and I for ten minutes." That irritates me ten times more than hearing someone say "Me and my friend are going to Disneyland!"
Still...when I go to the grocery store and see "Apple's $1.59 a lb.," I desperately want to hurt somebody.
On the other hand, I'll use punctuation any damn way I please, and as many commas as I want. (After all, they're free.)
There is not a single grammatical nicety mentioned on this thread that is not dealt with definitively and humorously in my new book, "So You Think You Know English--A Guide to English for Those Who Think They Don't Need One." It deals extensively with the Oxford comma and settles Roger's hash regarding your use of numerals in your first paragraph.
You really should pick it up. www.gordonosmondbook.com The reviews of the book at www.amazon.com and at www.barnesandnoble.com sound like they were written by blood relatives who owe me money, but I assure you they weren't.
Belatedly rated.
Happy New Year!
This thread and Freaky's comment have pushed me over the edge: "I'd leave a comment but I'm terrified to type anything."
Lie, lay; sit, sat; there, their, and they're.
Dude, you DO rock.
It should read as follows:
"I'm not ready to admit my grammar failings semicolon however comma your intriguing post leads me toward that goal."
Cheers!
"I give a fuck about an Oxford comma, and about when to use an ellipsis; I give a fuck about when to use parentheses and when to use dashes."
Rebel.