Grammar Nazis beware - 7 commonly corrected grammar errors that arent mistakes

[ashling]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-commonly-corrected-grammar-errors-that-arent-mistakes/

I tried to comment on this site, but it wanted me to register first.

If I had been able to figure out the wavy spam-bot protection letters (I am obviously a spambot), this is what I would have said:

You can't just capitalize every fucking word in the fucking sentence for no fucking reason, you fucking moron. Have a nice fucking day!

[CBGLuthier]

1. I can go with all of them except that last one

It made me think of this

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

[hlthe2b]

2. Today's incorrect spelling "correction" : cancelation v. cancellation; canceled v cancelled

BOTH are correct... Some days I feel like stamping that on my forehead. I really have no idea why that particular word and its conjugation seems to attract "spelling police" like moths to a flame--but it does.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

19. "seem"

that should be, "...that particular word and its conjugation seem to attract 'spelling police'...."




points for correctly omitting the apostrophe for "its" in the possessive, though.

[hlthe2b]

20. You just couldn't help yourself, could you?...

I accept the correction, but the rude snark is all yours. Should you chose to belittle me for the ellipses after the question mark, don't bother.

[pink-o]

28. I just read the rule re these words last year:

What I learned is so completely arbitrary and ridic, it just makes me want to protest at the Language Police Station.

Seems that when you show past tense to a verb ****where the emphasis is on the last syllable**** such as Control, you add a second last letter to spell Controlled. But with words like Cancel and Travel where the emphasis is on the first syllable you only tack on the "Ed" at the end.

Whatever. Sometimes I think these grammarians never actually use the language they're always crying about!

[hlthe2b]

29. Arbitrary, indeed. Merriam Webster opted to include Bush*'s bastardized pronunciation of "nuclear"

a few years back.... For no other reason, it appears, than to pander to that crowd...?

I try to spell correctly and use appropriate grammar, but I will readily admit, despite far more post-graduate education than, perhaps, some might believe, I frequently make mistakes. Mistakes I take great pains to correct on formal documents, but on an internet forum? Sorry... I will likely always make a mistake here and there. Like my use of the singular for "seem" (pointed out above)--after editing, cutting & pasting a clause that made it plural and thus incorrect... Heavens, I failed to go back and check that....

Oh, well...

[ashling]

31. they may be arbitrary

[RebelOne]

3. As a former copy editor, whenever I saw "they" used

when referring to one person, I would always change it . That drives me crazy even now.

[lastlib]

4. A favorite quote from my PoliSci professor:

"WHO is 'they'?? Don't use a pronoun without an antecedent!!"

[Art_from_Ark]

18. The problem is, when the gender of a third-person singular subject was unknown,

the subject was generally referred to as "he". That started falling out of favor in the '60s, and so it was changed to "he or she". But that was a little awkward, so people just adopted the non-gendered "they" as a fix-all third-person singular that is still used in the plural.

What really bothers me is to see corporations referred to as "who" and people referred to as "that"-- especially when people are trying to make the case that corporations are NOT people. It just grinds me to read "Companies who are doing this or that ...". It's like saying "Pencils who are yellow..."

[Bruce Wayne]

22. Saying "he or she" discriminates against hermaphrodites.

One should say "he and/or she."

[Art_from_Ark]

27. I think I'll just stick with "they"

[dmallind]

5. Strange how all the reasons are based on frequency and duration of use.

People shit in drinking water a lot and have done so for millennia. It's still generally speaking wrong to do so. The writer comes close to being correct twice and is absolutely correct once.

Split infinitives are indeed less troublesome than they were, but only because the reason for their proscription, run on or compound sentences, are less common. Hemingway splitting infinitives does no harm. Dickens or Milton doing so would be disastrous. Similarly "I'm good" is ok if a bit ambivalent. Good is an adjective. It can describe someone who is in good health or good spirits as much as someone who is a paragon of honor and altruism - we just don't know which. "I'm well" is a monstrosity equivalent to "I sing good". Well is an adverb, and while you could maybe stretch it to mean "I am (exist or live) well" (in a positive and successful way), it is terribleto use it in the same way as "I am (have the attribute of being)fat/white/rich, etc". Using an adjective to modify a verb is truly cringeworthy. You cannot sing good unless you project the word "good" at a given pitch.

The only inarguable stance here is that the passive voice is perfectly fine and merely a question of taste and aptness.

[quakerboy]

8. Language is based on use.

If this were not so, then every word you speak or write would be incorrect. English has not always existed as a language. Its only because people changed other languages that we are able to talk to each other as we do.

And your comparison leaves a lot to be desired. Words are a non corporeal abstract. People fouling water is a physical happening. Not remotely comparable.

[dmallind]

16. And incorrect use renders language useless

Of course language adapts, but that doesn't mean we get to decide what is the now-correct use of it just because other people use it incorrectly. U kan,tell wht i meen. noo but duzzn"-t mek it; rite!

And since when did analogies have to correspond in every facet? (strange rule to imagine eh?). Use musical notes then if you prefer. A lot of people have sung out of tune for all of human history, but it doesn't stop them still being out of tune now does it? Or render pitch invalid?

[jobycom]

17. Exactly right.

The rules should describe how language is used, not dictate how it is used. The only true measure of correctness of grammar is how clearly it is understood in the context. Sometimes "bad" grammar really is too ambiguous to be clear (like, writing "I want to two," when you mean "I want two, too.&quot , and then the rules are helpful in explaining and correcting. But other times what seems like a violation of the rules is perfectly understandable, and the rules should sit the fuck down and quit pretending they didn't understand. If I say "I'm going, irregardless of your opinion," everyone knows what I mean, even if they cringe at the word they claim isn't a word.

[Odin2005]

15. The split infinitives rule was a fabrication of 18th Centiry grammarians.

Their BS reasoning that because Latin does not have split infinitives (because Latin infinitives are marked by a suffix "-re&quot , then English shouldn't either. English forms the infinitive periphastically by using the preposition "to", and thus English allows split infinitives.

[edbermac]

6. You made an error on arent

It should be aren't.

[ashling]

25. That's one interpretation

Last edited Sat Apr 28, 2012, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[KamaAina]

7. I once called out a smart, ballsy writer for using the passive voice

It was Will Pitt.

Suffice it to say, that won't happen again.

[madinmaryland]

11. Heh! Try calling him out on the "24 business hours" things.

Many shit-storm threads about that!

[KamaAina]

12. Words fail me.

[Swede]

9. It are?

[madinmaryland]

10. BZZT! It should be "aren't" not "arent"

[pokerfan]

13. "A slowly descending pair of testicles obstructed his vision."

[Odin2005]

14. In my experience most English teachers are quite linguistically ignorant.

The "no split infinitives", "no ending sentences with a preposition", and "no double negatives" rules are complete fabrications of 18th Century grammarians who thought English should be more like Latin. Other shibboleths, like "ain't" are classist in origin.

I also find it hilarious how so many rant against the passive voice without knowing what the passive voice actually is, thinking it simply means "weak writing". The Passive voice is for emphasizing the object and/or obscuring the subject. "The glass was broken by Bill" puts the emphasis on the glass rather than on Bill.

[Bruce Wayne]

23. Is that a worse crime than hyperbolic subject lines?

Seriously? "Most" English teachers, an actual majority? And exactly how many people have you seen "rant" against use of passive voice while similtaneously demonstrating ignorance of what constitutes it? I suspect instead that you are merely overextrapolating from relatively few incidents that just so happen to reinforce your antiauthoritarian prejudices. And furthermore, is any of that truly a cause for a sense of hilarity on your part rather than, say, mild amusement?

(PS, starting today, I have become a content Nazi. All overstaters will be exterminated!)

[pipi_k]

21. Grammar Nazis suck

Most of them seem to use the tactic in lieu of real, intelligent, constructive discussion.

If they can't refute someone's point, they'll make themselves look/feel superior by pointing out the grammatical/spelling errors instead.

They may be technically correct, but that doesn't mean they win.

I'm a bit of a stickler for proper spelling and some of the more blatant grammatical mistakes make me cringe, but whatever my private thoughts are, I won't try to embarrass someone else in a public setting. If "educating" someone else is truly the goal, it can be done quietly, in private. Otherwise, it's just a way to feel superior in front of other people.

[Bruce Wayne]

24. Of course. One should cut a little slack on discussion boards.

I try to avoid spelling errors, or catch myself when I type out the wrong "there", or mispell "a lot" as a single word. But a simple typo amid a flurry of words qwertied out in a fit of political passions is rarely worthy of comment.

My personal favorite typo is when I write "now" instead of "not" in thesis statement. Saying "Republicans are now very smart" tends to undercut one's credibility on DU.

[RebelOne]

26. I cut a lot of slack on discussion boards because I see

so many grammatical errors that make me want so scream. I am a former copy editor, but I try to ignore the errors, otherwise I would be banned for being an grammar nazi if I corrected all the boo-boos that annoy me.

[Still Blue in PDX]

30. I've been a professional word nerd for close to 40 years and know all the rules.

Things have changed. Resistance is futile.

There are a few infractions that bother me (less/fewer, lay/lie being the two uppermost), but I've come to accept "they" in preference to he or she, and I don't break out in hives anymore when I see "12 items or less" on a sign. I also have learned not to correct my husband when he tells the dog to lay down, though even she looks at him like he's stupid.

In other words, I've finally learned, "Don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff."

[ashling]

32. A smart person knows the rules

a wise one knows the exceptions

- fortune cookie