Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[legaleagle53]

5 minutes ago, Brookside said:

The Charmin bears commercials, which are already unbearable:  "I'm not picking it up.  You pick it up," "I'm not picking it up."  "I'll pick it up because they're clean."

The problem?

[Brookside]

10 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

The problem?

Subject/verb agreement.  Should be either "I'll pick it up because it's clean," or "I'll pick them up because they're clean." 

[legaleagle53]

10 minutes ago, Brookside said:

Subject/verb agreement.  Should be either "I'll pick it up because it's clean," or "I'll pick them up because they're clean." 

Ah, see, context matters. I have no idea what "it" and "they" refer to, since I've never seen the commercial.

[shapeshifter]

On 10/29/2019 at 7:17 AM, Brookside said:

Subject/verb agreement.  Should be either "I'll pick it up because it's clean," or "I'll pick them up because they're clean." 

It’s the little bear’s undies, right? Convention dictates plural. But a “pair” of worn underwear crumpled on the floor might be indistinguishable from a single undershirt or a sock, and I suppose the bear might not switch to the plural until after the “because” since the bear is now referring specifically to a so-called pair of underwear. 

But I agree that the potential consumer of Charmin’ toilet paper should not be required to parse the commercial’s poorly constructed sentences. 

And using furry bear bottoms in a commercial about messy poops just makes it all repulsive. 
 

—————————————-

When I heard the commercial come on again yesterday, I watched it and saw that the little bear’s underpants are white with red bands around the leg openings, so I am revising my rationale for the parents referring to them with the singular “it.” 
I think the parents are so repulsed by the idea of poopy underpants on the floor, that they holler “Pick it up!” because the item is too horrific to be described, much as someone might yell “Kill it!” about a spider in the house, regardless of the spider’s gender. 
Okay. Poor analogy. Hopefully it just makes my point. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by shapeshifter

[topanga]

On 10/29/2019 at 8:38 AM, shapeshifter said:

When I heard the commercial come on again yesterday, I watched it and saw that the little bear’s underpants are white with red bands around the leg openings, so I am revising my rationale for the parents referring to them with the singular “it.” 
I think the parents are so repulsed by the idea of poopy underpants on the floor, that they holler “Pick it up!” because the item is too horrific to be described, much as someone might yell “Kill it!” about a spider in the house, regardless of the spider’s gender. 
Okay. Poor analogy. Hopefully it just makes my point. 

I'm more appalled by the fact that this bear thinks the underwear he wore are clean because they don't have poop skid marks. Gross.

I completely missed the grammar error, but I see it now. 

[shapeshifter]

13 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

. . . Two Turtle Doves had one of the most cringeworthy lines when one character told the lead "Congratulations on your paper, I hear it got excellent peer reviews."

That is not what peer review is when it comes to academic papers, writers.

[Brookside]

Lots of things I hate; here are a few:

I could care less instead of I couldn't care less.

Cliché instead of clichéd.

Lay instead of lie.  Chickens lay eggs, you might lay the table, but you don't lay down for a nap.

[Bastet]

22 hours ago, Brookside said:

but you don't lay down for a nap.

Unless you're using past tense, such as, "Yesterday afternoon, I was so tired I could barely keep my eyes open, so I lay down for a nap."

Present tense is easy (well, for some!), but I have to stop and think about some of the others.  Here's a guide:

Lie (intransitive verb; basically, use it when someone is moving on her/his own):

I am lying down.
I lie down every day.
I lay down yesterday.
I have lain down in the past.

Lay (transitive verb; it requires an object -- use it when there's something/someone being placed):

I am laying a hat on the bed.
I lay a hat on the bed every day.
I laid a hat on the bed yesterday.
I have laid a hat on the bed in the past.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Bastet

[Milburn Stone]

16 hours ago, Bastet said:

Unless you're using past tense, such as, "Yesterday afternoon, I was so tired I could barely keep my eyes open, so I lay down for a nap."

I am lying down.

I lie down every day.

I lay down yesterday.

I have lain down in the past.

As opposed to:

I am laying a hat on the bed.

I lay a hat on the bed every day.

I laid a hat on the bed yesterday.

I have laid a hat on the bed in the past.

My only concern is that some, who don't have as firm a grasp as they might on the difference between intransitive and transitive verbs, could think your "as opposed to" means those examples are wrong. Of course you don't mean that; all the hat sentences do take versions of the present-tense lay. 

[Bastet]

6 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Of course you don't mean that; all the hat sentences do take versions of the present-tense lay. 

Right; the OP was talking about when to use lay and when to use lie in the present tense, and I expanded on that with the other tenses.  But I'll edit for clarity.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Bastet

[Brookside]

"Do you mind if I come in?"  Answer: "Sure."

To the speakers, for some reason that means "Of course I don't mind. Please come in." 

To me it means, "Yes, I do mind mind, please go away."

Edited November 12, 2019 by Brookside
The first word of a new sentence requires a capital!

[Milburn Stone]

7 hours ago, Brookside said:

"Do you mind if I come in?"  Answer: "Sure."

To the speakers, for some reason that means "Of course I don't mind. please come in." 

To me it means, "Yes, I do mind mind, please go away."

Would be interested to know, when you reply "No," how many people interpret that as a denial of permission to come in.

[shapeshifter]

9 hours ago, Brookside said:

"Do you mind if I come in?"  Answer: "Sure."

To the speakers, for some reason that means "Of course I don't mind. please come in." 

To me it means, "Yes, I do mind mind, please go away."

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

Would be interested to know, when you reply "No," how many people interpret that as a denial of permission to come in.

Having been frankly/rudely/angrily interrupted by some daughters when I begin a sentence with “I hope this doesn’t make you mad…,” I suspect that frequently “Do you mind if I come in?" is similarly asked when the person asking has reason to believe that the person who is inside might not welcome the person asking. Therefore, the literal meaning of “Sure” (i.e., “Yes, I do mind and would prefer it if you would just go away”) is likely also the real meaning. 
Otherwise the respondent might reply something like, “Come in! Come in! Can I get you something to drink?” to disabuse the visitor of any notion that they* are not welcome —which I’m picturing as a scene in some old B&W movie. 
————-

*Singular “they” used intentionally.

[shapeshifter]

At an annual extended-family gathering, my daughter and I were conversing with a cousin’s fiancé who has much in common with my daughter, including being a young adult with an advanced academic degree and fluid employment situation. I asked her about her current situation, and 3 times she used the word shareholders when it should have been stakeholders. My daughter and I exchanged furtive glances each time and later confirmed the error privately. The cousin’s fiancé and my daughter both make more money than I ever have with my advanced degree. I wish I had gently corrected her with a chuckle about too much beer or wine having been served so she will continue to make more money. 

[topanga]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

At an annual extended-family gathering, my daughter and I were conversing with a cousin’s fiancé who has much in common with my daughter, including being a young adult with an advanced academic degree and fluid employment situation. I asked her about her current situation, and 3 times she used the word shareholders when it should have been stakeholders. My daughter and I exchanged furtive glances each time and later confirmed the error privately. The cousin’s fiancé and my daughter both make more money than I ever have with my advanced degree. I wish I had gently corrected her with a chuckle about too much beer or wine having been served so she will continue to make more money. 

First, I wish I could’ve watched you and your daughter sneak each other those little glances. 
 

Second,  what’s the difference between the two terms? I think I know, but...

[Milburn Stone]

20 minutes ago, topanga said:

Second,  what’s the difference between the two terms? I think I know, but...

A shareholder has profit participation in a company. A stakeholder may not have any profit participation, but nevertheless is affected by the fortunes of the company. (He may be an employee whose job depends on the company's success, for example.)

[meowmommy]

13 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

A shareholder has profit participation in a company. A stakeholder may not have any profit participation, but nevertheless is affected by the fortunes of the company. (He may be an employee whose job depends on the company's success, for example.)

I was going to take a stab at explaining it, but you did a really nice job.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

A shareholder has profit participation in a company. A stakeholder may not have any profit participation, but nevertheless is affected by the fortunes of the company. (He may be an employee whose job depends on the company's success, for example.)

Also, stakeholders often aren't even part of a corporation or business, whereas shareholders are. In the instance referenced by my family member, the stakeholders were citizens and politicians, which made calling them shareholders even more erroneous to my ear, but now that I think about it, it's not so far off the mark.
  

2 hours ago, topanga said:

I wish I could’ve watched you and your daughter sneak each other those little glances. 

Heh, yeah. I kept hoping she didn't see us doing it. I was very careful.

Edited December 2, 2019 by shapeshifter

[Mondrianyone]

On 10/29/2019 at 8:17 AM, Brookside said:

Subject/verb agreement.  Should be either "I'll pick it up because it's clean," or "I'll pick them up because they're clean." 

That's actually pronoun agreement, not subject/verb agreement.

[Brookside]

Off of.

And paparika.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Brookside

[Brookside]

Ah, the importance of apostrophes!

I just read this in another thread, from someone trying to get one of her cats to lose weight: "I have tried to . . . prevent him from eating both his sisters and his food".

Can I coin a new word?  Catabolism.

Edited December 26, 2019 by Brookside
Added a little for clarity

[Kromm]

22 hours ago, Brookside said:

Ah, the importance of apostrophes!

I just read this in another thread, from someone trying to get one of her cats to lose weight: "I have tried to . . . prevent him from eating both his sisters and his food".

Can I coin a new word?  Catabolism.

My rage at the current ignorance on proper apostrophe use is from the opposite direction.  I burn with white hot rage at how around half the people on the Internet seem to think you use an apostrophe in ANY word ending in the letter S.  

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, Kromm said:

On 12/26/2019 at 4:58 PM, Brookside said:

Ah, the importance of apostrophes!

I just read this in another thread, from someone trying to get one of her cats to lose weight: "I have tried to . . . prevent him from eating both his sisters and his food".

Can I coin a new word?  Catabolism.

My rage at the current ignorance on proper apostrophe use is from the opposite direction.  I burn with white hot rage at how around half the people on the Internet seem to think you use an apostrophe in ANY word ending in the letter S.  

@Kromm, perhaps they figure it's better to add a superfluous apostrophe than to have the neighbors thing they have a fraticidal cat.

😉

[jennblevins]

According to a Science Channel show I watched a few days ago, genetic testing has proved that a guy living in Wales today is the ancestor of an ancient skeleton found in a nearby cave. 

You’d think the time travel aspect would have been discussed more ....

[Brookside]

“We had to take people off the switchboard ‘cause there was so much hateration going on.”

Thanks Oprah for another made-up word when there are so many great ones already available.  I have nothing against neologisms when appropriate/needed, but this is ridiculous.

[Bastet]

Now I have Mary J. Blige's "Family Affair" stuck in my head.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[DearEvette]

10 hours ago, Brookside said:

“We had to take people off the switchboard ‘cause there was so much hateration going on.”

Ok,  but is "holleration" ok?

[shapeshifter]

22 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Ok,  but is "holleration" ok?

Nope

[Browncoat]

WTF is holleration?

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Browncoat said:

WTF is holleration?

I’m guessing it was subconsciously inspired by “what in tarnation?!” (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tarnation#h1) but, still: Nope. Not a word. 

[Browncoat]

Definitely not a word.

 

[Brookside]

I have never been a fan of Meghan's.

Meghan's what?  Her family?  Her eyebrows?

How about "I've never been one of Meghan's fans"?

Or maybe you just don't like people called Meghan.  It's still wrong.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Brookside

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Brookside said:

I have never been a fan of Meghan's.

Meghan's what?  Her family?  Her eyebrows?

How about "I've never been one of Meghan's fans"?

Or maybe you just don't like people called Meghan.  It's still wrong.

 

My first assumption is that there is a restaurant named Meghan's.

[legaleagle53]

13 hours ago, Brookside said:

I have never been a fan of Meghan's.

Meghan's what?  Her family?  Her eyebrows?

How about "I've never been one of Meghan's fans"?

Or maybe you just don't like people called Meghan.  It's still wrong.

 

 

No, it's not. The Genitive can be used this way in English with proper nouns just as it can be used this way with pronouns. Compare "I've never been a fan of hers."

Edited January 13, 2020 by legaleagle53

[Mondrianyone]

9 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

No, it's not. The Genitive can be used this way in English with proper nouns just as it can be used this way with pronouns. Compare "I've never been a fan of hers."

Absolutely correct.  It's called the double genitive, and it's been a perfectly acceptable form of the possessive for more than two hundred years.   It's not that hard to look these things up before calling people out without foundation.

P.S.  "Catabolism" is already a word.  And "coining a new word" is redundant.

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

16 hours ago, Brookside said:

I have never been a fan of Meghan's.

Meghan's what?  Her family?  Her eyebrows?

How about "I've never been one of Meghan's fans"?

Or maybe you just don't like people called Meghan.  It's still wrong.

 

 

Read more  

No, it's not. The Genitive can be used this way in English with proper nouns just as it can be used this way with pronouns. Compare "I've never been a fan of hers."

The problem here is that the original quote doesn’t have enough context for us to know if the apostrophe was used correctly (i.e., if Meghan does not admire or like the speaker/writer) or if the apostrophe should not have been used (i.e., if the speaker/writer has never liked Meghan). Right?

I assumed it was the latter situation since the OP was so annoyed, but I did initially wish there was more context, and now I see why. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by shapeshifter

[Milburn Stone]

10 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

The problem here is that the original quote doesn’t have enough context for us to know if the apostrophe was used correctly (i.e., if Meghan does not admire or like the speaker/writer) or if the apostrophe should not have been used (i.e., if the speaker/writer has never liked Meghan). Right?

I assumed it was the latter situation since the OP was so annoyed, but I did initially wish there was more context, and now I see why. 

YMMV, I guess, but I see no way humanly possible to interpret the sentence to mean that Meghan dislikes the speaker/writer.

The way to write it to indicate that meaning would be "I have never been a favorite of Meghan's."

[legaleagle53]

On 1/13/2020 at 10:10 AM, Milburn Stone said:

YMMV, I guess, but I see no way humanly possible to interpret the sentence to mean that Meghan dislikes the speaker/writer.

The way to write it to indicate that meaning would be "I have never been a favorite of Meghan's."

And the double genitive would still be correct. *mic drop*

[Ohwell]

A pet peeve of mine, especially now that we're in an election cycle, is when people discussing polls say "xx% of Americans," as if the poll was taken of all Americans.  I wish they'd say something like "xx% of Americans in the (you name it) poll."  Of course, they'd never give us the sample size.

[Lugal]

One that really annoys me that I saw recently: carat vs. karat. (and I know that in the UK they are both spelled with a "C" which only adds to the confusion)

A carat (ct) is a unit of weight for gemstones (it's about 200 mg)

A karat (K or kt) is a measure of purity for gold alloys divided into 24 parts.

[SuprSuprElevated]

2 hours ago, Lugal said:

One that really annoys me that I saw recently: carat vs. karat. (and I know that in the UK they are both spelled with a "C" which only adds to the confusion)

A carat (ct) is a unit of weight for gemstones (it's about 200 mg)

A karat (K or kt) is a measure of purity for gold alloys divided into 24 parts.

I prefer mine roasted, served with a soy/honey/butter glaze.

[Ohwell]

1 hour ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

I prefer mine roasted, served with a soy/honey/butter glaze.

Same here!

[Stats Queen]

7 hours ago, Ohwell said:

A pet peeve of mine, especially now that we're in an election cycle, is when people discussing polls say "xx% of Americans," as if the poll was taken of all Americans.  I wish they'd say something like "xx% of Americans in the (you name it) poll."  Of course, they'd never give us the sample size.

No just the sample size, they don’t generally report on the demographics of the sample, e.g., political affiliation, geographical area, personal demographics (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity). Sometimes if you dig you can find those details.

Yes, I like good methodology, statistics and how representative the sample is of the population it is supposed to represent.

Also, sometimes I have huge problems with how the items are worded because they are not neutral and phrased in a way that would not be statistically reliable.

Yes, I am a huge geek and do a lot of survey work in my profession.

[shapeshifter]

On the new spinoff “9-1-1: Lone Star,” this grammatical error took me out of the scene, because using a nonbinary pronoun is no reason to forego using the subject case, right?

"I'd like you to show him, or her, or they, it's okay to be who you are"
should have been:
"I'd like you to show him, or her, or them, it's okay to be who you are."

Right? Or is there some nuance I am missing?

[rainsmom]

You are correct!

 

[Jel]

1 minute ago, shapeshifter said:

On the new spinoff “9-1-1: Lone Star,” this grammatical error took me out of the scene, because using a nonbinary pronoun is no reason to forego using the subject case, right?

"I'd like you to show him, or her, or they, it's okay to be who you are"
should have been:
"I'd like you to show him, or her, or them, it's okay to be who you are."

Right? Or is there some nuance I am missing?

Oh, oh oh! I think I know this one. "They" is now considered (by some) to be a gender neutral singular pronoun. (Since it was always (and continues to be) a plural pronoun, I'm personally rooting for a different spelling of "they" as a singular pronoun to distinguish it from the plural because it's awkward. But side issue.)

My assumption is substituting "them" for "they" in this case would not be correct since the "they" in this context is meant to be singular and is really directed at each individual in the audience, be the individual a him or a her or a they.

That's my guess anyway.

[Milburn Stone]

My old fogie view is that when it comes to any issue involving "them" or "they," there is no answer that will not get you in trouble. (Except for the one that's acceptable to the person you're talking to, if they've been kind enough to give you complete instructions.)

[supposebly]

A brief history of singular they and the idiots who tried to police its use.

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

I believe however that the use of they here is a tendency these days to use the subject form as a case of over correction. If I'm not sure, subject form feels better.

Hence the changes with conjoined pronouns such as: I'd like this to remain between you and I.

I'm thinking that we are about to lose the distinction altogether, a development that is well established for subject 'you' and object 'you' in plural and singular and subject 'it' and object 'it'.

Some dialects only have 'them' already.

 

[Brookside]

From NBC track and field coverage:  "This has set a very ominous time in an Olympic year."

[Ohwell]

12 hours ago, Brookside said:

From NBC track and field coverage:  "This has set a very ominous time in an Olympic year."

Honestly, I don't know the incorrectness of this sentence without knowing the context.