Grammar. We all use it, and we all have seen things that just don't sit right. Sometimes, the things expound rules; other times, they flout rules. What set you off today?111 responses total.
ogjohn: sounds like you're plunging you're boy soup to me
Grammar. We all use it..."
I'm reading the book, _Wines: Their Sensory Evaluation_, by Maynard
A. Amerine and Edward B. Roessler (1976, W. H. Freeman and Company),
where I found this gem:
The truth in this statement may be that we like
food combinations that we are familar with better
than those with which we are not familiar (p 16).
Quite obviously, the authors (and their editor) have heard the dictum,
"Thou shalt not use a preposition to end a sentence with." Equally
obviously, they have failed to understand the commandment. Fortunately,
they therefore prove it false.
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is
underestimating."
--U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000
"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning"
--Florence, SC, Jan. 11, 2000
"Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it.
When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking
about myself, all of us are talking about me."
--Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
--Reuters, May 5, 2000
"I think we agree, the past is over."
--On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000
"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometime
until we get an objective analysis."
--Meet the Press, April 15, 2000
"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to
California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."
--Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000
"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations;
their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science
of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal cufflink."
--Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000
"The fact that he relies on facts -- says things that are not factual --
are going to undermine his campaign."
--New York Times, March 4, 2000
"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature."
--Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000
"I understand small business growth. I was one."
--New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000
"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that simply
suckles kids through?"
--Explaining the need for educational accountability, Beaufort,
S.C.,Feb.16, 2000
"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have he can't have
it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."
--To reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000
"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and
principles, come and join this campaign."
--Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000
"We ought to make the pie higher."
-South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000
"I've changed my style somewhat, as you know. I'm less, I pontificate
less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show. And I'm more
interacting with people."
--Meet The Press, Feb. 13, 2000
"I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class,
I think we should knock down the tollbooth."
--Nashua, N.H., as quoted by Gail Collins, New York Times, Feb. 1, 2000
"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."
--Pella, Iowa, as quoted in the San Antonio Express News, Jan. 30, 2000"
"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do
when you run for president. You gotta preserve."
--Speaking during Perseverance Month at Fairgrounds Elementary School in
Nashua, N.H.
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
--Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses."
--At a South Carolina oyster roast; quoted in the Financial Times, Jan.14,
2000
"There needs to be debates, like we're going through. There needs to be
townhall meetings. There needs to be travel. This is a huge country."
--Larry King Live, Dec. 16, 1999
"The important question is, How many hands have I shaked?"
--Answering a question about why he hasn't spent more time in New
Hampshire; quoted in the New York Times, Oct. 23, 1999
No wonder he is the most tightly stagemanaged president in history.
I thought that title went to Ronald Reagan.
I think I'm going to start a band called "Federal Cufflink."
My favorites: "They want the federal government to control Social Security, like it's some kind of federal program." This one may be apocryphal: "The problem with the French is they have no word for entrepreneur."
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
My gripe has always been how much English--and in particular--spelling has been butchered by online folk. Typos I expect, but how many times can you misspell the word "the?" For some reason, there's people who seem to insist on using the form "teh." Come on, it's three lousy letters! Get it right! I speculate that people, in their haste to respond, don't pay enough attention to what they're typing; The brain moving faster than their fingers, as it were.
(Either that semicolon should be a period or the word "The" which follows should not be capitalized.)
That's it. I type teh too many times to count. And I don't mind typos like that. What I do mind are words like "u", "r", "c". And excessive "lol"s and "omg"s and "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Annoying.
An admin and I used to program, for security reasons, the bits of
various internet services to respond in badly written half-nonsense like that
when asked for their version numbers. Most of 'em ran on "Teh Lunix."
LOL. I like it. "How come I don't feel all l33t and condescending like the other Lunix users?" -- JEFFK
The other day some coworkers were trying to punctuate "Dos and Don'ts." One of them wanted to use "Do's and Don'ts" and the other wanted to use "Do-s and Don't-s." When I explained that there shouldn't be an apostrophe since it's not possessive, the "Do-s" voter said it looked funny. I said sure it did- it's not a real word. That sort of thing is a bit irritating in general. What's more irritating is that there are two websites I read pretty regularly that bill themselves as "writing" sorts of sites. Both have essays, satires, humor and so on. One has few typos (other than "mail he get's" but the other is always riddled with misspelled words, incorrect punctuation and horrible grammar. It seems a little inaccurate to tout your writing skills when you have a lack of basic, well... writing skills. (And now I'll step off my soapbox)
I use "Do's and Don'ts" knowing full well that the apostrophe in "Do's" is ungrammatical, because I *don't* want it to be confused with DOS as in MSDOS.
Re #10: that should have been "...there're people..." People is plural.
re#13: That is cute but really pretty stupid when you think about it. More often than not it is a stupid program that is trying to figure out the service version so while it will not give away the exact suite of exploits to deploy it does flag the site for investigation by a human. The key is to not be noticed or be noticed wrong. You are far better off having a service lie and return a legitimate version on a different architecture than amuse yourself over how clever you are. At the very least you should lie and return the most current version especially as it is likely a clever scanner knows yer OS anyway. You don't really want to be seen as a challenge by folk that probably also spend a lot of time playing games and so would regard you as an interesting one. Don't play the game in the first place. Don't spend your stockholder's money playing the game against someone who likely as not lives at home with his parents and has a small allowance - its really irresponsible. (pardon me for being so irresponsible as to give such away for free that I usually charge good money for but I couldn't resist.)
IIRC, you're supposed to use apostrophes to pluralize the names of
letters. ("Cross your T's, dot your I's, mind your P's and Q's.")
AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH! No.
The Apostrophe Protection Society 23 Vauxhall Road, Boston, Lincs. PE21 0JB United Kingdom http://www.aophe.fsnet.co.uk/ See also a summary of correct apostrophe usage at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html (They confirm use of the apostrophe for plurals of letters.)
Could get http://www.aophe.fsnet.co.uk to work :-(
Could NOT even......... Doh!
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
I wonder how that URL got mangled. I just pasted it in from my browser's location window. Thanks for the correction.
re resp:19: You're using the apostrophe to alert your reader to the upcoming "s", which is not necessary. But it doesn't matter. If someone writes of using too many Ps or P's, it conveys the same information. People are too uptight about aged rules of grammar. Just be appreciative when people can make themselves understood -- it's hard enough to do that for too many people. Anyway, the language is going to change and evolve. So are rules of spelling, grammar and punctuation. Drew in resp:16 provides a great example of when to "break" the rules as they've been taught to you. If you can make a sentence more clear, then that should trump a formal rule, every time and without hesitation.
Re. 11: Actually, I've seen it done both ways in various publications. Admittedly, I'm not sure which usage is correct.
Services on my servers tend to be pretty quiet about their version numbers. I suppose it could be argued that having my Exim mail server return, say, some old version of Sendmail would be better than having it just give a bare minimum connection banner, but given the number of sites around that blatently advertise that they're running a buggy version of sendmail I figure most script kiddies will just move on to easier targets.
I don't see any merit in the argument in #16: "Dos and don't" can't be confused with DOS, since DOS is a capitalized acronym, and also context would make the distinction clear. I favor strong adherence to grammatical rules so that language does not evolve too fast. jep misses this point in #26: you are more easily *misunderstood* if you evolve the languaage on the ground "language evolves". I would agree with the desire for clarity, but I do not know of any grammatical rule violations that improve clarity. Examples, please?
Re #26: Best to use an apostrophe to pluralize letters, I think. An
added "s" without the apostrophe tends to make things pretty ambiguous and
hard-to-read. Consider:
Always dot your is and cross your ts. (confusing, looks weird)
Always dot your i's and cross your t's. (much clearer)
The sentence contains several us. (huh?)
The sentence contains several u's. (oh...)
I suspect jep's tolerance of grammatic drift will dry up in a few years when his then-teenage sons start spouting slang every other word.
What, you don't think jep will be sending his kids out with directions to study and capture the latest examples of emerging slang in the wild so he can publish his latest book, "Even more English Slang"?
I figure that if someone says something to me and I understand it, then the language has served its purpose. I also think that in informal settings it is perfectly acceptable to make grammatical errors either verbally or when writing. It is also true that making typos and spelling words wrong does say a lot about a person or what they are thinking or feeling. If a person who usually doesnt make errors suddenly starts, one has to wonder. If a person *always* has bad grammar, that says something about them too. Still, the people who have the nerve to correct other people's grammar in discussions that are not about grammar bug me more than the original grammar error.
(It should be "If a person *that* usually doesn't......" /bug)
Actually it is "If a person, who usually doesnt make errors, suddenly starts..."
I've already been through language assaults. When my older boy was in 2nd grade, he'd actually catch himself saying something normal, then change it to sound like his friends. For example, "I prefer chocolate ice ... oops, I mean, I'm *like* chocolate ice cream." It grated on me. I'll be going through it again soon, I suppose, and it'll grate on me all over again. Parenting is the process of being grated on until you can be sprinkled like cheese. (Hmm, that doesn't mean anything, does it?)
And if anyone wants to correct me on that one, they had better plan on letting me know *why* it is incorrect. I mean, this *is* a discussion about grammar, is it not?
Re #35: both are correct. You are using the non-restrictive or non-defining relative pronoun who, and I used the restrictive or defining relative pronoun that. Notice the necessity of your using a comma, while what I wrote never uses a comma. The restrictive is somewhat better, as "...a person, who usually doesn't make errors..." can imply that *every* "a person" usually doesn't make errors, which is untrue. However if it were specific, say "...Mr. Dumbledore, who usually doesn't make errors...", and we know who Mr. Dumbledore is, then it is OK.
Thank you, Rane. That was very informative.
"...for all intensive purposes..." WRONG! "...for all intents and purposes..." RIGHT!
bzzt.
the second is a time worn phrase, I think
from legalese.
that doesn't make the first wrong, though I agree
some people probably are mangling the second.
reminds me of stuff I've seen in the AA News:
"on tenderhooks" for 'on tenterhooks'
"searching for armour" for "searching for amour'
The former may make sense in certain contexts, but it is NOT the correct wording of that particular idiomatic phrase.
You can't argue with me. I'm agreeing with you.
from http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtoalli.html
"to all intents and purposes"
This cliche (meaning "practically") is a shortening of the legal
phrase "to all intents, constructions, and purposes" (found in an
act adopted under Henry VIII in 1547). The corruption "for all
intensive purposes" is frequently reported.
I have never heard "to all intansive purpose", ANYWHERE!
An editorial in the AA News last week referred to "certified pubic accountants."
(eewww.)
resp:44 I've never heard of "to all intansive purpose," either. Maybe we should respell that?
I've seen peddlers selling ID cards identifying the bearer as a "CERTIFIED PUBIC ASSASSIN". Apparently some pubes deserve to die.
I received a (supposed) humor email containing the phrase "for all intensive purposes" in a context which suggested that the author was not aware of the correct phrase.
Re #29: "I do not know of any grammatical rule violations that improve clarity. Examples, please?" "When the judge entered the courtroom, everyone stood on their feet" is clear, and grammatically incorrect. "When the judge entered the courtroom, everyone stood on his feet" is grammatically correct, but unclear.
They seem equally clear to me, though it is unfortunate that English doesn't have a generally useful singular neuter pronoun for people. However this is recognized in my dictionary, which has: "their, gen. pl. of the demonstrative pron.........: often used colloquially with a singular antecedent (as, everybody, somebody, everyone)." I don't think that makes the usage *incorrect*. Better example, please.
Merriam-Webster seems to think it's valid to use either "their" or
"his". "Their" is more colloquially correct in modern American English, and
"his" sounds more like something one would say in British Parlaiment. But
several dictionaries agree that *both* are grammatically correct.
Re. #51: "They seem equally clear to me..." The first says everybody stood up. The second implies that they stood on the Judge's feet.
Exactly. I would go with the first sentence.
The lack if clarity is in the word "everyone," which is technically a singular form, but has come to be a plural form in its usage. If you break it into two words, then the meaning is clearly singular, which may be why it is such a challenge for formalists to accept the combined form as a plural.
Re #45: When I was in high school, I worked at the Alma Public Access Channel. That same typo, dropping the "l" from "Public", happened there once. Fortunately, I wasn't the one who did it. ;>
The rule against splitting infinitives can lead to some pretty ugly stuff too (and should never have been grafted onto English from Latin in the first place).
Have to disagree there. I suppose it's possible that there are situations in which a split infinitive is the clearest way to express something, but the vast majority of them that I see can be avoided fairly easily with a little thought, and the resulting sentence is almost always clearer for it.
My favorite don't-end-with-a-preposition sentence: Mom brings book to child's room to read bedtime story. It is child's least favorite book. Child asks: "What did you bring that book I don't like to be read to out of up for?"
"Ending sentences with prepositions is something up with which we shall not put!" -- Winston Churchill
Re #58: Okay. So why would "To go boldly where no man has gone before"
have been superior to what they actually used on Star Trek?
Boldly to go where no man has gone before.
Spare me your restrictions on the licensure of poets.
Re #62: That one's so strained, it's almost incomprehensible. The "no
split infinitives" rule is silly. It has no place in English.
My high school calculus teacher used to call your method of argument "proof by intimidation". I'm all about #62. I admit taht "to go boldly" scans poorly, the rhythmic structure is awkward. "Boldly to go" doesn't have that problem. Claiming that it's strained smacks loudly of circularity.
"Boldly to go" is exceptionally awkward, IMO. We sit and wait for the sentence to have a subject...and finally discover it doesn't even have one.
This is somehow different from the case for "to boldly go"?
Not very. I suppose "To go boldly" could be the subject of a sentence ("To
go boldly is admirable"), but it turns out that isn't the subject. This
pseudo subject becomes even less clear by the inversion of the customary
word order. I agree there is "poetic license", especially when one is
writing poetry, but that does not always have a primary objective of
clarity. So, are we discussing this as poetry, or as clear expression?
The "sentence" doesn't have a subject. It's a sentence fragment to start with.
I think w.r.t. the canonical Star Trek example that the case can be made that it should be evaluated as poetry, because of the context. Or, if poetry is too strong a term, at least rhetoric. Still, as either poetry or rhetoric, it scrapes the bottom of the "mediocre" end of the spectrum IMO. :) I think that part of my opposition to split infinitives comes from the idea of considering grammar as, well, a grammar, in the computer science sense. Without being too rigorous, I think it's a good idea not to use an adverb in any situation where using an expanded adverb phrase would be bad. If the canonical example in question were something like "to with clear eye and undiminished courage go...", I think most people would agree that that is more awkward than, say, "to go with clear eye and undiminished courage...". Or whatever. :)
I agree that's more awkward... but I still don't see a good case for the general rule against split infinitives. (I won't claim that the Star Trek line is great writing, either, but it scans better to my ear than the alternatives do.)
I think it's a terrible example. It's too familiar. It sounds most natural the way you most often hear it. Big surprise. Proves nothing one way or the other.
Most of the so-called "rules of grammar" seem to actually be guidelines for people with a tin ear. Most people with a good sense of rhetoric and style can get on just fine without them. But for those who wouldn't know a good sentence if it up and bit them, following the "rules" is a way to avoid some of the worst pitfalls. (I think the worst example of this is the "rule" against using the passive voice. Good writers use the passive voice from time to time. But since some bad writers use it _constantly,_ English teachers have started telling their students not to use it at all. The one about split infinitives doesn't bother me as much, but it strikes me as a similarly fake rule, made to stop people from coming up with atrocities like flem's in #70.)
Well, it's a set of informal rules. Most native English speakers (and
several non-natives, including our own beloved Mynxcat) know them
instinctually. But it's handy when you're pointing out why something doesn't
work, or editing a difficult piece, to know what the rules are and how to use
them.
Yeah, but. Is grammar the ruler of expression or is it nothing more than a tool to aid in expression. I am thinking I recall a situation of english speaking not boss who's actors fun of made who angry exclaimed "you may think I don't know fuck, but I know fuck all!". Understood him I did.
Most grammars merely describe how people used the language back when the grammarian was learning it, with the addition of a few of the grammarian's pet peeves -- an error somebody once caught him in that he's been brooding over and consequently wants to convert into a quasi- correct or exceptionally correct usage. But there are no objective standards to refer to, only a faded snapshot of an active process. To those who learned it forty years before, it will sound lax and vulgar; to those who learn it forty years later, it will sound pompous and old- fashioned.
re: "#73 (orinoco): ... But for those who wouldn't know a good sentence if it up and bit them, following the "rules" is a way to avoid some of the worst pitfalls. (I think the worst example of this is the "rule" against using the passive voice. Good writers use the passive voice from time to time. But since some bad writers use it constantly,_ English teachers have started telling their students not to use it at all. The one about split infinitives doesn't bother me as much, but it strikes me as a similarly fake rule, made to stop people from coming up with atrocities like flem's in #70.) According to our spouse, grammar is not taught in elementary school. So by the time the students reach the upper grades, I suspect teachers are now "giving up" on the whole concept of proper word usage. She constantly is telling us about the grammar errors made by the younger teachers. We would bet that if we asked those teachers what passive voice or split infitives, they'd stare at us like a deer caught in a car's headlights.
What is passive vice?
That's a good question. In the active voice, the author/subject is the subjective pronoun, I believe (coming before the verb). You use "I" a lot. In the passive voice, the author/subject is the objective pronoun-- using lots of "me's" (it occured to me, it dawned upon my mind). The narrator seems to be acted upon by inanimate concepts. I realize this is a poor explanation, but this is best how I remember it.
Active voice: "We f*cked up" Passive voice: "Mistakes were made by us" (The "by us" is often dropped...)
Re #78: You just lie there.
Re #75:
Sometimes I can understand people when they break the rules of grammar
for the way they're speaking, sometimes I can't. Someone could speak fluent
dancehall ragga, and I'd probably be left going, "uhmmmm what?"
Passive vice: Bookies stuff gambling winnings in your pocket as you're walking down the street minding your own business.
I should be so lucky.
From a book of house plans - Windows are inadequate in number and insufficient in size. This elegant design blends high vogue with a restful character. A flexible interior enjoys modern space that welcomes sunlight. Come home to spectacular views and livability. majestic curb appeal A taste of Europe is reflected.. This sensational design is sweetly luxurious.... an unrestrained floor plan rich with reminiscent detailing The combination of stacked stone, brick and siding [sic] add [sic] warmth Kitchen and dining spaces lack windows and imagination There is no focal point to draw one's eye as they approach the home. open planning offers an aura (!) of spaciousness Walls of windows provide a front row seat to enjoy nature's bounty.... If you can't write, sell houses.
Probably more money in it right about now.
Can anyone rewrite all these sentences to be both grammatical and meaningful? For instace 'a feeling of spaciousness'.
Grammer rules always make me feel stupid. (Err, sorry. Passive voice, there. I guess I mean, "I always feel stupid when people bring up grammar rules." Better?) I know I violate them all the time but I can never keep track of all of them.
The passive voice is legitimate, as far as I know, but it does bring
up a good point. The two sentences have different meanings - either a is
acting on b, or is acting on a. The first sentence implies grammar rules or
grammarians make you feel a certain way, the second implies that you choose
to feel a certain way because of grammar nazis. Oddly, I kind of feel like
one now ... :?
[There is no passive verb in "Grammer rules always make me feel stupid."] Passives become a problem mainly when people use them to hide responsibility. Constructions like "I was told..." and "The decision was made..." are commonplace in corporations and government. They've become so automatic now that they don't infallibly tell you the speaker is a weasel anymore. Consider it possible, though, especially if you ask "Who told you?" or "Who made the decision?" and don't get an answer.
Syntactic deletions and nominalizations are fun.
Like the sentence "The enterprise infrastructure was leveraged to good
end." It means absolutely nothing.
Sure it does. It means the business was improved.
Re #90: Argh. There, you see the problem? I don't even understand the rules...no matter how many times "active voice" and "passive voice" are explained to me, I can't reliably tell them apart. I guess it's a good thing I'm not trying to make a career out of writing. I worry that I seem less intelligent to other people because of this kind of thing. Re #91: I run into a lot of sentences like that in job postings. HR people also love to take technical terms they vaguely understand and apply them to human situations, like this comment I found in an actual posting: "Must be able to work well in an interrupt-driven environment."
If they want computer expertise, they should say so.
Dont feel bad, gull. I have a grammar point that I have trouble understanding even though it has been explained to me millions of time. I just have a mental block about it. If anyone wants to take another shot at it, feel free. I always confuse "affect" and "effect" when they are used as verbs. I dont have trouble with them as nouns.
Owch, I see this more and more: except used for accept.
"The client found the product exceptable" Ow Ow Ow.
I'm not too clear on what Keesan doesn't like in her
examples.
A bit of bad grammar and lack of any meaning.
#95: "The earthquake affected 200,000 people in the vicinity of Lima." "The earthquake effected the destruction of $2,000,000 worth of property." (If you reversed these, it would be like saying that the earthquake MADE 200,000 people, and that it in some way altered the destruction, but didn't necessarily cause it.) "Change is constant. You can effect change, but you cannot affect it." (This means that you can introduce change into an existing scenario, but you cannot alter the concept of change itself.)
effect = cause affect = act on
I think the problem is that "to cause" and "to act on" are similar concepts in my mind for some reason. *shrug*
I see "to cause" is to initiate something, while "to act on" is to effect something that's already happened.
That's still pretty similar to me but then again, I never could do grammar.
You mean, "affect something that's already happened". You can, of course effect that something so you can affect it.
Um...well...that is a confusing sentence ;)
This is a grammatical lost cause: 'gender' in contrast to 'sex'. In times past, gender was strictly a grammatical concept. Words were, for example, masculine or feminine (or neuter). People, on the other hand, used to have sex. That is, male or female biological identities. Usage has changed the rules and confusing gender for sex no longer merits a correction.
Give me an example in which it is useful to give the same concept different names in different contexts when the context is neither obscured nor relevant.
I read #106 about five times, but I'm still not at all sure what it says. Are you asking why we have different words for the same thing? I got the impression you were complaining about #105, but what you said doesn't seem to bear any relation to #105.
English doesn't really have gender. At least, not any more. French, however, does: a table is feminine, although sexless.
A friend of mine was complaining about German's genders, once. Apparently in German a brassiere is masculine, and a child is neuter.
Makes sense to me. Men are (generally) more interested in holding women's breasts than women are, and preadolescent children, cuturally and societally speaking, are generally much more like both sexes than they are like one or the other, so there is little value in distinguishing.
are there new technology words in German that are also nuetral or masculine? (new since the language was 'codified'). Like radio, television, telephone, internet, cyberspace?
You have several choices: