Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[ABay]

I am confused. Supposedly isn't the word people mean when they say supposably?  All this time I've thought it was like "should of" and "intensive purposes"--a mispronunciation.

[Bastet]

Supposably is a word (meaning capable of being supposed; conceivable), but often (probably usually) when you hear it, it's someone mispronouncing supposedly.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Bastet

[Sandman87]

I'm getting off topic, but the misspelling I don't get is "plutonic", which is a real word and doesn't mean the same thing as "platonic".

Q: Did you hear about the igneous geode that's been hanging around with a block of granite?

A: It's a Plutonic relationship.

[riley702]

That's fabulous.

[Shannon L.]

Speaking of pronunciations:  Is it the Quini-PI-ac, or Qui-NIP-iac poll? I've heard both in the past few weeks.  The first one sounds right to me.

[riley702]

Speaking of pronunciations:  Is it the Quini-PI-ac, or Qui-NIP-iac poll? I've heard both in the past few weeks.  The first one sounds right to me.

 

According to this, it's the first.

 

http://forvo.com/word/quinnipiac/

[ABay]

QuiniPIac is how we say it here where Quinnipiac is.

Edited January 29, 2016 by ABay

[Shannon L.]

Thanks.  I thought so.  Every time I hear the other one (and it's not often, thank God), it's like nails on a chalk board.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Q: Did you hear about the igneous geode that's been hanging around with a block of granite?

A: It's a Plutonic relationship.

 

*steals*

[supposebly]

 

Supposably is a word (meaning capable of being supposed; conceivable), but often (probably usually) when you hear it, it's someone mispronouncing supposedly.

Oh my, and all this time I only knew it as a mispronunciation of supposedly! Now, I'm wondering if I actually misunderstood the Friends scene I got it from. Or whether they got the joke wrong.

Chandler rants about him ending up alone because he nitpicks all his dates and will end up alone because he dumps a woman when she pronounces it supposably. (btw, the spellchecker here doesn't recognize it). Joey thinks it's the right pronunciation. He puts it in context: Did they go to the zoo? Supposably. I assumed we are supposed to laugh at him for mispronouncing. Aren't we?

It's Friends season 2x03. TOW Heckles dies.

Edited January 30, 2016 by supposebly

[Sandman87]

Hey, you bring that pun back here right now!

 

While watching some of the debate coverage last night and today, I heard any number of reporters and commentators referring to "political pundints."

[Bastet]

I assumed we are supposed to laugh at him for mispronouncing. Aren't we?

 

Yes.  Joey, like most people who say "supposably" (or "supposebly"), means supposedly but thinks it's pronounced supposably.  But supposably is a word.  Its meaning is in the same ballpark as that of supposedly, but much narrower, and it's not a word that has been in common use (correctly) for some time. 

 

ETA: I just did a search, and found a "Word Facts" article on the two words (and it references your Friends example).  I also found a very short one saying, "Supposably is a word, but there's a 99% chance you don't know how to use it."  Heh.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Bastet

[riley702]

People using "nauseous" when they mean "nauseated". If you're feeling it, it's "nauseated". If you're causing it, it's "nauseous". When someone announces they're nauseous, I always look behind them for the crowds of puking people in their wake.

[Bastet]

I'm a stickler on that one, too, but I think it's another example of where common usage is turning - or has already turned - nauseous into a synonym of nauseated.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Hey, you bring that pun back here right now!

 

I know someone who's super into geology, so I told her, and she said, "Good Lord." :-P

[Rick Kitchen]

Hey, you bring that pun back here right now!

 

While watching some of the debate coverage last night and today, I heard any number of reporters and commentators referring to "political pundints."

 

I posted about that on Facebook just the other day.  :)

[StatisticalOutlier]

I'm a stickler on that one, too, but I think it's another example of where common usage is turning - or has already turned - nauseous into a synonym of nauseated.

 

Yep, I tried to bust my sister on that one the other day, and whatever online dictionary she used said it's okay.  I hope the site she used gave her phone a virus 

 

I was watching an episode of Gilmore Girls and Lorelei said, "This was our first home--mine and Rory's."  I just about cheered.  I would have said "Rory's and mine," but anything other than "Rory and I's" was going into the WIN column as far as I was concerned.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"You do you."

 

Someone had to explain it to me, because I had never heard it before, and I'm still wondering how the hell it became something that people say. Stupid reality programming.

[ByTor]

Merriam Webster: Full Definition of nauseous
1 causing nausea or disgust : nauseating
2 affected with nausea or disgust.
"Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nauseous

Cambridge English Dictionary: ​feeling as if you might ​vomit: Roller ​coasters make me ​feel nauseous.› UK formal making you ​feel as if you might ​vomit: the nauseous ​smell of ​rotting ​flesh

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/nauseous

Edited February 1, 2016 by ByTor

[riley702]

Yep, we can throw citations back and forth all day. Proud to be a stickler, especially on a "grammar police" forum topic.

 

https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/nauseated-nauseous/

 

"If you're nauseated you're about to throw up, if you're nauseous, you're a toxic funk and you're going to make someone else puke. These words are used interchangeably so often that it makes word nerds feel nauseated!"

 

"Sticklers will keep the distinction. If you feel nauseated after thinking about this nauseous distinction, then you're on the right track."

 

 

[topanga]

 

"If you're nauseated you're about to throw up, if you're nauseous, you're a toxic funk and you're going to make someone else puke. These words are used interchangeably so often that it makes word nerds feel nauseated!"

But using the word nauseated makes me feel ostentatious, even if it is the correct word.

 

Question--Which is correct: Alright or Allright? Or are both acceptable? My grammar books (and online searching) give me different answers. 

[riley702]

I've got a site bookmarked - "Common Errors in English usage", and it says both are wrong; that it's two words: "all right" But I'm personally less bugged by "alright" than "allright", for some reason. And the spell-checker just flagged "allright", but not "alright". Hmm.

Edited February 1, 2016 by riley702

[Qoass]

Will someone think of the commas?  The new Sprint commercial in response to that Verizon one with the colored balls rolling around kicks off with a graphic of "Nice try Verizon".  Don't they know that unless they're going for a new name for that company a la "Bad News Bears", it should be "Nice try, Verizon".

[shapeshifter]

Will someone think of the commas?  The new Sprint commercial in response to that Verizon one with the colored balls rolling around kicks off with a graphic of "Nice try Verizon".  Don't they know that unless they're going for a new name for that company a la "Bad News Bears", it should be "Nice try, Verizon".

If they try to use it as a stand alone catch phrase on billboards or websites, it will look like "Nice. Try Verizon." I always think it's a poor marketing choice to flaunt your competitor's name.

[supposebly]

But using the word nauseated makes me feel ostentatious, even if it is the correct word.

 

Question--Which is correct: Alright or Allright? Or are both acceptable? My grammar books (and online searching) give me different answers. 

 

It's possible it's a part of a long-running pattern in the weirdness that is the spelling of English where previously two separate words end up being spelled together. For example, another used to be an+ other

alone (adj., adv.)

    c. 1300 contraction of all ane, from Old English all ana "unaccompanied, all by oneself," from all "all, wholly" (see all) + an "one" (see one). Similar compounds are found in German (allein) and Dutch (alleen).

The etymological dictionary says it's also a contracted form.

alright:     frequent spelling of all right, attested from 1893.

So, I would say, all right but alright.

 

11 Weirdly Spelled Words—And How They Got That Way (includes an explanation why February is spelled that way).

http://mentalfloss.com/article/13076/11-weirdly-spelled-words%E2%80%94and-how-they-got-way

[riley702]

Neat article, supposebly!

[Sandman87]

From the local news...again: "The alleged assailant and the victim argued about what we don't know." They must have been arguing for days in that case, based on my assessment of what the local news doesn't know.

 

Maybe they meant to put a comma between argued and about.

[StatisticalOutlier]

Well, Black-ish did it again.  A year ago, I complained here that a character on the show had said, "Sharon and I's wedding."  Then last night, they used "your guys's" as the possessive of "you guys."  I really truly hope that's not what the script said, and that the actor, a teenager, modified it.  But even if that's the case, SOMEBODY should have insisted on another take. 

 

I don't expect sitcoms to use the Queen's English, and accept that they're not in the business of educating the masses on proper construction of possessives.  But it can't take any more effort to do this one right than to do it wrong.  Doing it wrong will reflect poorly in some people's eyes, but nobody's going to notice if the character, talking to two people standing there together, says "your" instead of "your guys's."  So why do it? 

 

ETA:  Oops--make that "Queen's English."

Edited February 11, 2016 by StatisticalOutlier

[St. Claire]

Oops--I may have outed myself as having been raised in Texas, where mispronunciations abound.  If it's a regional thing, then I can't figure out why people think it's spelled rediculous. 

I've lived in MD for my entire life, and often hear it pronounced as ree-dic-u-lous.

 

People using "nauseous" when they mean "nauseated". If you're feeling it, it's "nauseated". If you're causing it, it's "nauseous". When someone announces they're nauseous, I always look behind them for the crowds of puking people in their wake.

Or  even worse, I saw post on one of the discussion board that said a scene on last night's Grey's Anatomy made him or her feel "nauseas."

 

From the local news...again: "The alleged assailant and the victim argued about what we don't know." They must have been arguing for days in that case, based on my assessment of what the local news doesn't know.

 

Maybe they meant to put a comma between argued and about.

I'll go one step further- I believe it should have a semicolon. "The alleged assailant and the victim argued" has both a subject and a verb and, thus, is a complete clause; "about what, we don't know" is as well. That may be my personal love for the semicolon showing through, though.

[CoderLady]

I'll go one step further- I believe it should have a semicolon. "The alleged assailant and the victim argued" has both a subject and a verb and, thus, is a complete clause; "about what, we don't know" is as well. That may be my personal love for the semicolon showing through, though.

 

One of my favorite punctuation marks, too. When I proofread, if I find I have too many commas in my writing the semicolon is my go-to replacement if it's appropriate. More of an upgrade, actually.

Edited February 12, 2016 by CoderLady

[shapeshifter]

From the local news...again: "The alleged assailant and the victim argued about what we don't know." They must have been arguing for days in that case, based on my assessment of what the local news doesn't know.

Maybe they meant to put a comma between argued and about.

I'll go one step further- I believe it should have a semicolon. "The alleged assailant and the victim argued" has both a subject and a verb and, thus, is a complete clause; "about what, we don't know" is as well. That may be my personal love for the semicolon showing through, though.

I used to use the semicolon anywhere it was correct to do so, but now I save it for special occasions when it is the only clear and correct punctuation. So in this case I would either use a dash or parentheses (which I now try to avoid), so the dash wins, like so:

The alleged assailant and the victim argued—about what we don't know.

But my choice of a dash is probably more indicative of my current favorite punctuation than what is the best of the eligible choices, including the semicolon and the comma.

ETA a comma at legaleagle53's prompting (see below):

The alleged assailant and the victim argued—about what, we don't know.

Edited February 13, 2016 by shapeshifter

[Sandman87]

The sentence was spoken in this particular case, so I would have accepted any kind of pause between argued and about, whether it was comma length, semicolon length, or "long uncomfortable pause because I forgot what I was saying" length.

[legaleagle53]

I used to use the semicolon anywhere it was correct to do so, but now I save it for special occasions when it is the only clear and correct punctuation. So in this case I would either use a dash or parentheses (which I now try to avoid), so the dash wins, like so:

The alleged assailant and the victim argued—about what we don't know.

But my choice of a dash is probably more indicative of my current favorite punctuation than what is the best of the eligible choices, including the semicolon and the comma.

 

You forgot to put a comma between "what" and "we."  It was that ambiguity that prompted the original post in the first place.

[shapeshifter]

You forgot to put a comma between "what" and "we."  It was that ambiguity that prompted the original post in the first place.

You are too generous, legaleagle53, in attributing my punctuation failure to forgetfulness. I didn't even notice it. Now I really want to see the teleprompter cue that the news reporter was using. Likely it had no punctuation whatsoever.

[Sandman87]

My current working hypothesis is that the person who enters the teleprompter text actively hates the news readers.

 

Today the local news informed me that one of the counties in CA has groundwater rules that make it difficult to establish a grape vineyard. As opposed to a banana vineyard?

[StatisticalOutlier]

Speaking of teleprompters, I can't remember if I mentioned it here back when it happened, but a newsreader in India was fired after she called China's president, Xi Linping, "Eleven."  All caps can be a killer.

[Moose135]

I keep hearing people say "very unique" when describing things.  As Jed Bartlet said - and I often mumble when I hear it - "Unique means 'one of a kind.' Something can't be very unique..."

[Sandman87]

I'm getting awfully tired of people forcing their sentences to use awkward passive verbs. "I am loving this" as opposed to "I love this" is probably the most common example. It seems inescapable, no matter what show I change the channel to.

 

From the CBS national news: "(Expert name) believes that water disposal wells used after hydraulic fracturing is linked to the quake increase." And that's the way they is.

[legaleagle53]

I'm getting awfully tired of people forcing their sentences to use awkward passive verbs. "I am loving this" as opposed to "I love this" is probably the most common example. It seems inescapable, no matter what show I change the channel to.

 

 

That's not a passive verb, because the verb is in the active voice (as shown by the fact that it takes a direct object, "this"). What we have here is the use of the present progressive tense where it normally would never be used as a simple statement.  Verbs that denote feelings or states of being aren't used all that much in the progressive tenses because they're static by nature, whereas the progressive tenses are used to show that dynamic actions are actually in progress.

[topanga]

That's not a passive verb, because the verb is in the active voice (as shown by the fact that it takes a direct object, "this"). What we have here is the use of the present progressive tense where it normally would never be used as a simple statement.  Verbs that denote feelings or states of being aren't used all that much in the progressive tenses because they're static by nature, whereas the progressive tenses are used to show that dynamic actions are actually in progress.

Wow. Thanks for the grammar porn, legaleagle53. I had to read it twice, but I understand your explanation. 

 

I hear people balk at the use of the word "Awesome." American society has used the word to describe things that don't really 'inspire an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, or fear.' "Awesome" has been come a synonym for "cool."

 

But isn't that okay? Words change meanings over time. It happens. Of course, I want to be able to pick and choose when that's acceptable. For example, I will not accept someone saying, "I literally peed my pants when Justin Bieber's new song came out." --No offensive to Justin Bieber fans, of course. 

[legaleagle53]

Wow. Thanks for the grammar porn, legaleagle53. I had to read it twice, but I understand your explanation. 

 

I hear people balk at the use of the word "Awesome." American society has used the word to describe things that don't really 'inspire an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, or fear.' "Awesome" has been come a synonym for "cool."

 

But isn't that okay? Words change meanings over time. It happens. Of course, I want to be able to pick and choose when that's acceptable. For example, I will not accept someone saying, "I literally peed my pants when Justin Bieber's new song came out." --No offensive to Justin Bieber fans, of course. 

 

That reminds me of an old joke that I first heard about 30 years ago (although it really has roots that go back much farther than that).  A father is telling his teenage daughter, "There are two words that I never want to hear you use in conversation.  One is 'awesome' and the other is 'gross.'"  His daughter, an unrepentant Valley Girl, replied "Oh, fer sure, Dad.  Like, what are they?"

[Shannon L.]

 

That reminds me of an old joke that I first heard about 30 years ago (although it really has roots that go back much farther than that)

I first heard it on I Love Lucy:   "There are two words that you should never use.  One is 'swell' the other is 'lousy'".  "Ok, give us the 'swell' one first." (those are paraphrased, of course).

Edited February 16, 2016 by Shannon L.

[StatisticalOutlier]

But isn't that okay? Words change meanings over time. It happens. Of course, I want to be able to pick and choose when that's acceptable. For example, I will not accept someone saying, "I literally peed my pants when Justin Bieber's new song came out."

 

But what if it were Tom Jones?  Among his fan base, literally peeing one's pants is entirely likely.  So that one really could go either way, which is why the pedants must win this battle over "literally."

[legaleagle53]

I first heard in on I Love Lucy:   "There are two words that you should never use.  One is 'swell' the other is 'lousy'".  "Ok, give us the 'swell' one first." (those are paraphrased, of course).

 

Well, that's a swell way to get off to a lousy start!

[ABay]

I'm watching the penultimate episode of Mythbusters and I need a ruling on an idiom. The myth they're testing is based on an idiom they've repeated as "you couldn't fight your way out of paper bag", but I've always heard "you couldn't fight your way out of a WET paper bag." Is it just me?

[CoderLady]

I'm watching the penultimate episode of Mythbusters and I need a ruling on an idiom. The myth they're testing is based on an idiom they've repeated as "you couldn't fight your way out of paper bag", but I've always heard "you couldn't fight your way out of a WET paper bag." Is it just me?

 

Not just you. I've always heard it as "wet paper bag." They tend to take liberties with phrasing sometimes.

[St. Claire]

I'm watching the penultimate episode of Mythbusters and I need a ruling on an idiom. The myth they're testing is based on an idiom they've repeated as "you couldn't fight your way out of paper bag", but I've always heard "you couldn't fight your way out of a WET paper bag." Is it just me?

I've only heard it as "wet paper bag," with the intention behind the expression being that you are so weak that you can't even burst through soggy paper (which is notoriously soft and easy to tear). 

[ABay]

Thank you both. "Wet" is the essential part of the phrase and MB completely missed the point. It's bizarre that no one on Reddit or the MB crew seems to have heard the original phrase.

[legaleagle53]

ABay, on 29 Feb 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

Thank you both. "Wet" is the essential part of the phrase and MB completely missed the point. It's bizarre that no one on Reddit or the MB crew seems to have heard the original phrase.

 

I've lived on this planet for 55 years, and I've never heard it that way.  I've only ever heard "You couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag!"

[shapeshifter]

I've lived on this planet for 55 years, and I've never heard it that way.  I've only ever heard "You couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag!"

It may be geographic. I never heard "wet" either, but it makes more sense.