I'm not sure how I became a grammar Nazi. Maybe it comes from being threatened with a yardstick by a nun who didn't abide the misuse of the King's English. Maybe I have a hearing anomaly, something in my inner ear that quakes and rattles my nerves whenever someone uses the wrong version of a root word in their writing or in their speech.
For instance, there is a distinct difference between “feeling nauseous” and “feeling nauseated.” The way I understand it, if I look at a pile of calves’ liver on a platter and I suddenly feel like I’m going to toss my cookies, I feel nauseated. It is the pile of liver on the platter that is nauseous. Unless you mean to say that you have the ability to cause nausea in another person by your very appearance or presence, there is no way for you to “feel nauseous.” This one is the equivalent of the proverbial fingernails on a chalkboard.
‘I’ before ‘e’
except after ‘c’
Sister Mary Holy Water would not tolerate rudeness in her classroom, especially when it came to the spoken word. In my day, if I put my name first in any kind of list I could very well be banished to the dreaded cloak room for a time out. (I don’t know why they called it that – she was the only one in the room who wore a cloak!) “Sally, Joseph, Antoinette, Tommy and I were playing Hide and Go Seek.” Well, maybe that’s not a great example. Sister’s first thought would not be my grammar, but what the hell was going on in this boy-girl group!
Grammatically, I was to always put myself last, and I was also to use the proper Case when referring to myself. What, you don’t remember nominative and objective case? Sheesh.
“I” is the nominative form, and is used when naming a subject of a sentence. “Me” is the objective case and is saved for self-referencing after a preposition; e.g. “Give it to me.” or “She gave me a dime.”, where the preposition “to” is inferred. Many speakers and writers get confused when they must combine themselves with another person in a statement. For instance, it is correct to say “My boyfriend and I went to a movie.” It is incorrect to say “My boyfriend and me went to the movies.” And it’s just plain obnoxious to say “Me and my boyfriend went to the movies,” which is what I hear most often from people younger than 30. One wouldn’t say “Me went to the movies.” – at least I hope not. That’s the way to test for correctness when using a compound subject –see if the word you chose works when standing alone in the same position in the sentence.
“The doctor was giving the bad news to my husband and I.” Is this correct? I know a lot of people who think it is, but, no, it is not. The word “to” that precedes “my husband and…” demands that you refer to yourself as “me.” No literate person would say “The doctor was giving the bad news to I.”
Then there is the verb “to feel.” It is something one either does with one’s hands or does with one’s heart. The two verb forms behave grammatically in entirely different ways. The only way to feel badly is to have a physical problem in your hands that prevents you from experiencing the complete sense of touch. “I was feeling my way in the dark, but must have felt badly, because I fell down the stairs.”
When discussing how you feel emotionally, it is either good or bad, not well or badly. When discussing how you feel physically or existentially, it is well, good or bad, but not badly. And yet, I have heard TV talking heads, the President of the United States, CEOs and Dr. Phil use it incorrectly. It makes me shudder.
Finally, there is take vs. bring. “Bring this to your mother when you go home.” Wrong. On the cover of People Magazine not too long ago, in a caption under a picture of Elizabeth Edwards were the words “She brought Christmas gifts to Quinn.” ARRRGGGH. That’s just wrong. In general, movement away from the speaker requires take, took or taken. Movement toward the speaker calls for bring, brought, brought. In the example from People, it is the subject of the sentence that determines which verb to use. She (Elizabeth Edwards) moved items (gifts) away from herself, so the correct verb is took. To me, that error might as well have been flashing in neon bulbs on the cover of a national magazine. I was shocked enough to write to the editor.
That’s enough for now, but there are so many more. What are some that bug you?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
janicephelpswilliams
toritto
divorcedpauline
Jan Sand
Pensive Person
SeventhSister
Salon.com
Comments
also "to" and "too" and "two"
to is directional; too means also or excessively, two is numeric.
You are obviously doing it for effect when you do it. And to great effect, I might add.
As one who posted on the death of the apostrophe, you know how I feel, though I admit I've probably misused take and bring, and have said "feel badly." So rap my knuckles.
Me recieved you're lesson loud and clear.
What we need are the literary equivalent of sharks to pick off the weaker nodules of our language.
i wrote about my tech writing pet peeves last month.
affect vs. effect is a definitely on the list. I think some people just avoid the words altogether a lot of the time.
I will love you forever if you do.
L.
Nice post! And great topic. ~R~
My students tend to write "dosen't" instead of "doesn't". Ouch.
ITS - possesive form.
IT'S - abbreviation for "it is".
Mailboxes that have "The Brown's" on them - who is The Brown? What is it he/she owns? The box? The mail?
@vs: I there teachers had taut him/her better, them teaches won't have jaws that was so taught.
PW, the less and fewer example REALLY bothers me as well.
cominghome, have you read Cranky Cuss's post about the death of the apostrophe? It is a Must Read.
Blackflon, ah yes, the old head butt. Those were the days, huh? lol
Vanessa, you must pull your hair out at night. I feel your pain.
Gigabiting, it's great to see you here at my place. Thanks.
i was a court reporter my whole life. i've seen (actually, that's 'heard') it all. but we don't get to transcribe what someone should have said, only what they actually said, wrong or not. it really messes with your mind.
I've always been a girl enthralled with reading the dictionary! I loved to diagram sentences!
Affect vs effect, me or I, and using "that" to reference people...
Strunk and White's Elements of Style, reading great literature (yes, Thoth!) and studying French all help!
R
I've always been a girl enthralled with reading the dictionary! I loved to diagram sentences!
Affect vs effect, me or I, and using "that" to reference people...
Strunk and White's Elements of Style, reading great literature (yes, Thoth!) and studying French all help!
R
I apologize for any grammar abuse here, but take creative license on my own blog.
Myriad, how true. But my tongue insists on saying shone.
{[R]}
@Pilgrim: That was the virtual equivalent of scraping nails on a board.
Bonnie, both examples send me around the bend.
Vanessa, diagramming scared a lot of people, but I believe it is the reason I truly understand sentence structure and parts of speech.
affected with nausea; nauseated: to feel nauseous.
xox
Usage Note: Traditional critics have insisted that nauseous is properly used only to mean “causing nausea” and that it is incorrect to use it to mean “affected with nausea,” as in Roller coasters make me nauseous. In this example, nauseated is preferred by 72 percent of the Usage Panel. Curiously, though, 88 percent of the Panelists prefer using nauseating in the sentence The children looked a little green from too many candy apples and nauseating (not nauseous) rides. Since there is a lot of evidence to show that nauseous is widely used to mean “feeling sick,” it appears that people use nauseous mainly in the sense in which it is considered incorrect. In its “correct” sense it is being supplanted by nauseating.
Robin, the OED long ago surrendered to Americanisms, such as using "nauseous" in place of "nauseated'. As a Brit, that makes me quite... pissed off actually.
Here's something you don't hear on the Eastern side of the Atlantic. Someone answers the telephone, and when the caller requests him or her by name, responds with "This is he (or she)". A Brit would say "This is him". (Actually a Brit would more likely say "Speaking" as in "This is your captain speaking", but never mind.) "This is he" sounds to my ear rather pretentiously awry, like Dame Edna Everidge's "Excuse I".
L, although I constantly nag my kids about take/bring, I think you may have picked a bad example. From the point of view of the magazine writer, Elizabeth Edwards did indeed bring the gifts - toward the writer's location. Had the writer seen her off from her home, the writer would have been able to write, quite correctly, that Mrs Edwards took the gifts (to the hospital).
I have also heard people say things such as, "My husband and myself are going on a vacation." Please use "I" as a subject.
Myself am through typing now.
Egregious offenders:
Shoe's for sale. Apostrophes
Its hot out. Possessives/contractions
Everyone wants their own cellphone. Subject/verb/pronoun agreement
I went swimming than I went to the movies. Usage
Don't forget misplaced and dangling modifiers: The executives started when the executives were out of town on a conveyor belt.
And don't get me started on punctuation...
as a former statistician and part-time pedant, I seethe when people use 'data' as a singular as 'The data is blah, blah.'
'Data' is plural of 'datum' or, if one wants to be less Latinate, 'data points.'
So there.
proofer: the reflexive 'myself' really has limited application. I think people have substituted it because of their discomfort over 'I' vs. 'me.'
Cindy: I have no doubt that we so-called purists are going to lose the nauseous vs. nauseated debate. The panel numbers quoted in my response to Robin pretty much supports something called Common Usage, which is the phenomenon that does change the rules over time. But I still hate it. Hah!
Cartouche: oooooooo, that's one for the top of the list. Another comes to mind: "also, too". For some reason, people in LA seem to say that a lot. Let me get back to you on the were vs. was question in a couple of minutes.
traveler: you are so right!
Were is used when talking about something that isn't currently true or that you wish were true (see? 'was' doesn't work there)
"I wish I were a mermaid who lived beneath the sea." If you ARE a mermaid, Cartouche, and you very well could be, there is no need to use the past tense of the verb "to be."
"If I were you, I would..." That's not currently true and likely never will be. "If I was you, I would.." doesn't even sound right and it never could be. The use of were in these instances is called the subjunctive mood, but who cares about that?
I think it comes from our culture being so ME oriented. It shows compassion and empathy to put the other before yourself. ME ME ME generation just cant grasp that concept.
“Me” is the objective case and is saved for self-referencing after a preposition; e.g. “Give it to me.” or “She gave me a dime.”, where the preposition “to” is inferred.
lynne truss's book is so right, it's righteous. and if it were (subjunctive, just like in french, you language maven, you), a book belonging to the entire truss family, the trusses, then it would be the trusses' book.
geeks/nerds unite! ;;
“Me” is the objective case and is saved for self-referencing after a preposition; e.g. “Give it to me.” or “She gave me a dime.”, where the preposition “to” is inferred.
This is wrong. The objective case is also used as a direct object, with no preposition, hidden or otherwise, and no self-reference. Hit me." Not: "Hit to me." "He sold me to her" (I am a puppy, let us say.)
Also: didn't you mean "implied" instead of "inferred"?
(and where's the preview function when you need it?)"
Hahahahaha! They don't call me Snippy the Grammar Bitch for nothing!
Rated.
I had been keeping a list of mistakes I come upon reading posts. One I often "off of " which is redundant.
Here are some others I have collected:
". . . the naïve child who’s world hasn’t been . .
"At it's worst,. . . "
"someone who's great grandmother "
"black person has it's own unique challenges "
"Laughing too hard...can't breath!"
"take my name off of it"
"who's loyalty "
" if it’s leaders "
" if citizen’s see their "
" at its' best "
" our breathe "
" its’ tall buildings "
" changes it’s value "
"younger one’s would be "
"Church and it’s Dogma"
"all the military's in the world "
" me laying in bed with "
"money off of it."
"None of these demands were unreasonable "
"who's hearts "
"the world in all it's glory"
"difference between Austen’s heroines. "
"who we knew personally"
" it's sincerity "
"gave it it's final blow "
"I refilled it again"
"I use to think "
---------------
Rated with an A+ !
"money off of it."
Care to take on the misuse of" virtual" and "literal"?? And while you are at it how about teaching the plural of sister-in-law and attorney general?? You really have your work cut out for you.
Where are you at? (!) Yikes! Cringe! That is the worst grammar sin, if you judge by prevalence. Americans ask this god-awful question every day in ebery part of the USA. North/South, East/West. Black/White. Oy!
Where ya at? They are used to that rhythm. ..! Rather than "Where are you?" .!. Ugly talk. Headed for okay-ness.
Why write around it. He or him would be the correct pronoun when there is a gender issue in the writing. You are not stuck on being PC are you?
:)
So here I'll try to make my case.
The most important thing to realize is that what is "correct" changes with time. In one comment you said you were glad we weren't still speaking Old English (by which you may have meant what linguists technically refer to Middle English, or even Early Modern English, as many people do; Shakespeare and the King James Bible, for example, are both written in Early Modern English). In that comment you implicity acknowledged that languages change with time. What was right at one point in time is not necessarily right at another.
As it applies to your particular examples, the distinction you make between "nauseated" and "nauseous" is probably one of those things where, shall we say, the times, they are a-changin'. I am of a younger generation than you, and I don't think there's anybody in my generation who says they feel "nauseated." In fact, that word almost doesn't exist in our vocabularies. If we say we are feeling "nauseous," is that wrong? According to your grammar, or your lexicon, it is. But according to ours, it isn't. "Feeling nauseous" is the right way to express that about-to-toss-your-cookies sensation. To put it crassly, and I hope this isn't rude, but when the people of the older generation have passed on, and the younger generation has become the older, the word "nauseous" will absolutely have the meaning of your "nauseated," and "nauseated" will likely be in the dictionary marked "(Antiq.)" Maybe 100 years ago, only "nauseated" was right, and 100 years from now, only "nauseous" will be, and right now we're witnessing that change in action. But to say one or the other is "wrong" is as silly as us telling Shakespeare he was wrong, or him telling us we are. There is no "wrong," there is just different.
What we have to understand about dictionaries and grammar guides (such as Strunk & White, and others) is that they are not immutable first principles from which we derive our language; they are ex post facto documents, written to try to explain and codify the language that already exists. Appealing to these guides about what is right is a shortcut for appealing to consensus. Words mean whatever people understand when they hear those words. There is no meaning inherent to the sounds (or letters) of the word "nauseous." But when people hear (or see) that word, they understand it to carry meaning - not because there is some pure "correct" language floating out in the ether somewhere, but because that's what everybody around them means when they use that word. If, with time, what people use that word to mean changes, then the meaning of the word changes. Even if the dictionaries and style guides don't.
And that lesson applies to everything about language, not just definitions of words. Grammar can change, too. In fact, language is never static. We tend to think of, say, English and German as being two separate and distinct languages, but they both came from the same Proto-Germanic source, some two thousand years ago or so, and evolved via small changes over time into two mutually unintelligble languages, with very different vocabularies and very different grammars. Everything in language changes. That doesn't make the new language wrong; we couldn't keep it from changing even if we wanted to (as you seem to).
Looking at another example, our British commenter, GeeBee, pointed out a really great example to confound your strict subject/object pronoun distinction. If you heard someone answer the phone and say, "This is she," would you think that was incorrect? Would say it should be "this is her"? I doubt it, but after all, if you were asked "which woman is Maria," you would never say "that's she over there"!
We should distinguish between several things that are somewhat compounded in your post. One is grammar, one is spelling, and one is politeness; we could also talk about clarity or effectiveness of communication. Grammar, as I have discussed above, is constantly changing. Does that mean it's impossible to get grammar wrong? No. If a three-year-old says "Yesterday she goed to the store," instead of "went," then that's wrong. It's wrong because "goed" is not part of the language; nobody uses the language like that. But for things that many people actually do use, it becomes harder to say "that's wrong" instead of just "that's a different dialect from my own." Language is consensus; if everybody said "goed" then "goed" would be right. There is, as I said, no perfect language floating in the ether that we can appeal to; all we have is common usage. Common usage defines the language; that's what language is.
Spelling, on the other hand, is not the same as spoken (or signed) language; spelling is a convention that was deliberately invented and created (not naturally occuring, like spoken language), in an attempt to represent our (already independently existing) spoken language. Spelling, then, is more of a top-down institution, whereas language just isn't. So "i before e except after c" is not a grammar problem; it's just a spelling problem.
As for politeness, it might be impolite or disrespectful, for example, to say "I and she went to the store," but surely you would admit that it's not any more ungrammatical than "she and I." You can say "she went" and you can say "I went;" they're both in the right case. The verb was conjugated correctly. The only thing that makes you feel like "I" should come last is some issue of humility versus arrogance, or something along those lines. Not to say such concerns are not important -- but they're not grammar.
And we could also talk about clarity or effectiveness of communication. For example, misplaced modifiers are a poor choice stylistically not because they're grammatically incorrect - in fact they're grammatical correctness is precisely why we accidentally use them so often - it's just because they make your sentences unclear to your readers. It's not good writing, grammar is correct.
I suppose I could go on and on like this, but I'll stop here for now.
Also effect is a noun and affect is a verb. Please get it right CNN!
I used to be a grammar Nazi, too, but no longer. That is, I'm aware of most of the little grammatical irregularities that I use and that I hear from others, but often I think of them as being part a someone's dialect or even their ideolect. Language most shows a man, speak that I may see thee.
(My inner grammar Nazi observes that I used "fun" as an adjective and a plural possessive for a singular noun. Also, Ben Jonson used a comma splice. Down, Nazi! :-)
And let's not get into contemporary spelling and punctuation. Or let's.
upyourbottom.com
Personal dis-favorites:
"Your" instead of "you're"
and
"On the other hand" when it doesn't follow "On one hand"
From one Grammar Nazi to another: you misused "inferred." You really mean "implied."
BK
There are plenty of British terms that come from long, long ago (like when people wore cloaks instead of coats). Private schools are called "public schools" because they date from when a private education was a live-in tutor in your castle, hence a school full of kids was 'public.' Now, even the royal family goes to school.
Fun post and you had me scrambling with your description of nauseous vs nauseated. Apparently I've always misused "nauseous."
Rated!
Since "none" is a contraction of "not one", and "cookies" cannot be the subject since it's contained within a prepositional phrase, the verb has to agree with the subject, "none".
Correct: "None of the cookies was missing." I stand by this. Maybe it's the British system I was taught early on.
1. Just as I am approaching antiquity status, so might be my ancient beliefs about grammar and language.
2. I misused the word 'infer' and should have used 'implied.' What I really should have done is said 'understood,' as I was taught.
3. There is really no grammar associated with English, because it is a dynamic, global language.
4. We grammar nazis could be a dying breed, but I doubt it.
5. This is the most fun I have had since the last time I got lucky!
Thanks to all for your comments.
As an excuse, I just was never taught this. I never sought it out enough,and now it seems like learning a complicated new language.
I think I commit the sins you mention -constantly- and I'm not proud. But, I think you are lovely and smart as hell ,so I hope you still visit my blog.
communicating, especially on television.
Fie!
In my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, this historical tidbit: the confusion is nothing new. Our forefathers have been doing it since 1494.
The dictionary advises "If you think you want to use the verb *effect* but are not certain, check the definitions in this dictionary." (How 'bout that?)
It continues: "The noun *affect* is sometimes mistakenly used for *effect.* Except when your topic is psychology, you will seldom need the noun *affect.*"
I hope that information effectively impacts the discussion.
Susie said that she loved Jimmy. Arrrr... Susie said she loved Jimmy, please!!!! Oh, and exclamation points. You did hit the nail on the head about I and me. I also try and follow Stephen King's advice and edit your piece by crossing out all of the "ly" words. Simplify, please. I inherited many good things from my mother and being one of the grammar police is one.
One note, though: Stellaa, I'm inclined to disagree with your notion that English has never really had a grammar of its own. It's always had one, though that grammar has certainly changed over the years and been more or less formal at different points (as has the grammar of all living languages to lesser or greater degree).
English is a bit more of a mish-mash than some other languages, mainly because of the early development from a hybridization of various Germanic languages coupled with Norman French in the centuries after 1066. But all languages evolve from somewhere. The Romance languages (lovely name) are all influenced by Latin, but contain other admixtures; German is in a different linguistic group from them but has some Latin influence as well.
But there have been many grammatical constants in English; Chaucer, for example, can be difficult to understand when read cold, but that's mainly because the words are either different or spelled as if so. When provided with a Chaucerian glossary the modern speaker can understand him quite easily, as the rules of sentence structure, verb tense, prepositions, etc, are reasonably similar (albeit not identical) to modern usage.
And it's important to understand that those grammatical rules evolved over time, very organically. English is really nothing like Esperanto. One evolved through popular usage over many centuries of use; the other is a modern and artificial construct by linguists. That's why English is so much more complex and irregular and messy than Esperanto.
That complexity can make it appear that English doesn't have its own grammar, but it does: it's just that the English grammar originates in its roots as a hybrid tongue. It's still one body of grammar, though: when you compare with other languages, it's obvious that English prefers certain syntactical structures over others (subject before object, and so on), that verbs are conjugated in a certain way, etc.
So, while English grammar derives from the language's hybrid, intertwined roots, it's still very much an English grammar - distinct from other grammars and proper to the English language.
You look young and beautiful ,so I don't buy the hip old lady thing.
I am also a grammar nazi.
There is a hockey player who is a member of the Nashville Predators.
His name is Jordan Tootoo.
Isn't that just too too much?
His number is 22.
Another player is named Jonathan Cheechoo while there is yet one more hockey player who is named Jarko Ruutu.
Have at it, everyone.lol
If you player roulette and put your money on the number Tootoo, would the croupier Cheechoo while calling you Ruutu because you spoke out of turn and behaved badly?
Not only am I a grammar nazi, I am a word player.
I have always enjoyed the easily manipulated English langwidge.
I am one who fiercly defends puns.
We punner of the punniest form of humor do know that a well punned word or sentence is of the highest of humor intellect.
In the least of all worlds, attraction between the genders, I have always been attracted/repulsed by the opposite gender's use of the King's English.
This is aligned with my boredom of those without a sense of humor.
'nuff sed.
Pardon me while I go to my room to laugh at myself.
A few more things about which to whine:
teh
"UR" as used by immature computerers.
Dere's much more, ain't there.
My affliction evolved from stealing my father's crossword puzzles when I became 4 or 5 years of age.
They were/are wonderful sources of knowledge.
That's no shit, man.
In the following;
"In the least of all worlds, attraction between the genders,",
I had intended to type,
"In the least real of all worlds, attraction between the genders,".
Types computerspeak for laughing here.
Oops. Now u r bored bi moi. lol
The L you say.
I really appreciate your points of view. As I said in my response to fernsy, I am really not the stick in the mud this post might suggest I am. I get that I am old(er) and perhaps a bit less flexible than I once was. At the very least we have a lively discussion going and that can't be all bad.
Lezlie
By the way, Fusun, I agree with you about "none" being used as a singular. That's what the nuns taught us and to hear "none are" makes me grit my teeth.
Chickens LAY eggs, people LIE down. (This one drives me nuts!)
Also, LIKE is not a verb. It can be a preposition, conjunction, noun, adjective, or an adverb, but not a verb. The sentence, "I like coffee" implies the speaker is similar to coffee. Better would be, "I enjoy coffee."
I cannot even remember the rules of grammar now. I just write and hope for the best. No doubt, you have read the book titled, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves." The title almost makes me roll on the floor with laughter, as I think in pictures. I see the Panda walk into the café in my mind's eye, as described in the book, and they have me there...reading the rest is almost like eating cake with too much icing... Be grateful, you remember the rules and feel so confident. I always wonder, after writing something, if I made any mistakes. How nice it must be to have such assuredness. Incidentally, "Where is he AT?" just drives me crazy. "AT" is so often misused. I cannot think of a proper example. Oh wait, "He is waiting at the café to see the Pandas." Southerner's may say 'He's winnin' when in conversation, but when they write, they typically write, "He's winning!!!
Illustrative example: "You can't split an infinitive."
The truth: In Latin you cannot split an infinitive because it's all one word. In English an infinitive is two words. So not only can it be split, there are many times it ought to.
If more than half of English-speakers say something a certain way, it is by definition the correct way to say it. But I know that language mavens have no interest in linguistics.
If you don't like the "to Harvey and I" construction, you should thank generations of previous grammar nazis for being so diligent that they managed to convince people to use the "I" at all times.
If centuries of indoctrination has not managed to eliminate a feature from the language, that means it's part of it. English pronouns do not follow the Latinate "Nominative/objective" model, which is why you are perpetually being annoyed when oblique pronouns like "me" come up when you don't want them to.
Languages change. Change is inevitable, and irreversible. Some people live to fight for their lost causes. Whatever.
A variant of that is the use of "yourself" instead of "you," as in "I'm fine; how about yourself?"
I worked as an editor in book publishing for 12 years and earn my living as a writer now, so this stuff hits home. One of my favorite grammar books, BTW, is The Transitive Vampire. Great fun because the examples are a hoot.
On the contrary, I am interested in linguistics and what an expert in that field can bring to the discussion. I may be an antique thinker, but I am up to date enough to recognize the dismissive function of the word "Whatever." when used they way you did. A quick perusal of my list of posts on this site will demonstrate my ability to alter my style, break the rules and misspell words. I am not a maven. I am human, but one who was educated in a way far different from today's students. The differences sometimes bother my ears.
I'll pick one small bone... some words enter the vernacular so consistently we should just give them a pass. Believe me, chemo patients are both nauseated and nauseous all the time. Kids with stomach viruses are too. Just sayin.. nauseous is not okay with me, but using the word is.
P.S L, when I see the pile of calves' liver, can I say that I have nausea? Urp.
I say "go lay down to Coqui, too." **cringe** But I always know I'm saying it wrong --after I've said it. lol
I read the whole thing!
I have a pet peeve: hilarious vs. hysterical.
"This post is hysterical!" No, it can't be! I don't want to imagine the post running around clutching its head!
"This post is hilarious."
I have said this before and usually people disagree, and think they are interchangeable.
Let me know what you think!
further/farther
lose/loose (makes me CRAZY)
moran/maroon instead of moron - though I see this so often I think it must be some meme I missed
I get quite cranky about "on/for". Personally, I wait for a bus but most people around here wait on a bus. EEUUWW! This is supposed to have something to do with the German phrasing but I doubt it.
My other pet peeve concerns improperly used quotation marks. Many people think they're for emphasis and suddenly there's "fresh" milk (something I'd fear to try), and my favorite, "preschool" (a fake school?).
I think I'll stop now...
Lose/Loose is another one: "I'm going to loose my mind."
Your/You're. "Your beautiful."
I was educated in public schools, and there was a little knuckle rapping that went on, sometimes.
English spelling is even more elusive - Shakespeare spells some words in more than one way, and of course there are different Canadian, British and American standard spellings.
There have always been differences in speech along dividing lines in society - geographical, social, economic, gender and others. What there has not always been in English is the idea that "those people speak 'wrong'." That's the result of proscriptive grammar, which is closely allied to social class, and in that sense it can be a bit "Nazi-istic." It's often assumed that "wrong grammar" is degenerated English, when in fact some of the things now deemed "incorrect" were accepted at one point and are traceable to older forms than today's standard. One example is "ain't." It is none other than the contraction of "am not." It was deemed "wrong" because in writing there is not one particular letter that is clearly removed and replaced by an apostrophe. But spoken language doesn't necessary follow spelling rules. (In English, it rarely does.)
Another is the preposition at the end of a sentence. This is based on Latin grammar, because there was an attitude that Latin was a 'perfect' language and in Latin, prepositions cannot occur at the end of a sentence. Not because it's a "rule," it's simply not possible. However English is a Germanic language and there are cases where a preposition at the end of the sentence is unavoidable, or where avoiding it is aburdly complex. "A preposition at the end of a sentence is something up with which I shall not put."
Yet another is "aks" instead of "ask," common in Black English Vernacular. Aks is actually an older form of the word than "ask," and was current among white speakers a couple of centuries ago in the southern US. As northern English became the standard, "aks" survived among isolated linguistic groups only. It's older but clearly low-prestige speech now.
And don't get me started on accent bigotry!
L.
1. She's the one that went crazy.
2. She's the one who went crazy.
Is 2. correct? Is 1. incorrect?
Lezlie
Thanks for reading this.
Lezlie