Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

candall

By candall
in Everything Else

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

DHDancer

DHDancer

My current hot buttons?  Reign vs rein.  I know horses and knowledge of their saddlery is no longer common knowledge but people talking about reigning in something (vs the correct rein in) is beyond cringe worthy for me.  And related:  to coronate vs to crown -- this one always has me laughing in despair: fortunately it doesn't crop up overly often.....

  • Love 3
  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Dimity
Dimity
nokat
nokat

I thought this belonged here. We need the occasional laugh.  

Browncoat
Browncoat

I just had a contractor reschedule an appointment for the second time.  They apologized for any "incontinence" that the rescheduling might cause.  🤣🤣

Posted Images

topanga

topanga

On 5/4/2016 at 8:02 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"What in the world is a yute?"

 

On 5/4/2016 at 8:39 PM, Ohwell said:

Well, according to Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny, it's a "youth."

But if you're quoting Joe Pesci, you have to specify, "The two yutes." Ah, that movie still cracks me up. 

 

3 hours ago, DHDancer said:

My current hot buttons?  Reign vs rein.  I know horses and knowledge of their saddlery is no longer common knowledge but people talking about reigning in something (vs the correct rein in) is beyond cringe worthy for me.  And related:  to coronate vs to crown -- this one always has me laughing in despair: fortunately it doesn't crop up overly often.....

I wonder if the "reign vs. rein" errors occur because people are writing too quickly without bothering to proofread their work--and because we don't use those words every day. For example, I don't confuse "its" and "it's" because I do write those words almost every day, and the differences between them are ingrained in my brain. But I have to think about whether to write "role vs. roll" because I don't use the word very often. And in my proofreading, I find that I do occasionally get it wrong. 

  • Love 1
jpgr

jpgr

On 3/30/2016 at 6:52 AM, Shannon L. said:

You know where I hear the most grammar errors? In music!  Drives me crazy to the point that if I'm singing along, I usually correct it......The most misused phrase is "you and I/me", although, when Paul sings "If this ever changing world in which we live in" in Live and Let Die, it makes me cringe. Every. Single. Time.  I simply can't sing it that way.

This used to drive me crazy, but I believe it's actually "If this ever changing world in which we're livin'"

  • Love 2
Rick Kitchen

Rick Kitchen

Just now, Sandman87 said:

One that comes up frequently on locally produced TV shows because of the region's colorful history: Hanged vs. Hung. I don't know how many times I've heard someone on TV talking about the stagecoach robber who was hung back in 18-whatever. No. Pictures are hung; people are hanged.

 

I made that mistake on a paper in high school and my teacher drew a picture of a noose explaining the difference.  :)

  • Love 7
MaryPatShelby

MaryPatShelby

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 9:45 AM, St. Claire said:

Along with the reign vs. rein, I find myself irrationally irritated by anyone who says that one must "tow the line" or that someone is balling [his or her] eyes out." No and no.

I'm with you on "balling".  I also hate, irrationally, probably, when someone writes "Awe, so cute", when they should have written "aw".

  • Love 6
galax-arena

galax-arena

(edited)

I'm tired of people acting like "titular character" is the same thing as "main character." There might be a lot of overlap between the two, but they are NOT the same thing. "Titular" = having to do with the title. That's it. No, Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock is not the titular character of Elementary. Rebecca is the titular character of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, but she is not the main character. Julia Roberts' Erin Brockovich is both the titular AND main character of Erin Brockovich. And so on. 

Edited by galax-arena
  • Love 3
Kromm

Kromm

59 minutes ago, galax-arena said:

I'm tired of people acting like "titular character" is the same thing as "main character." There might be a lot of overlap between the two, but they are NOT the same thing. "Titular" = having to do with the title. That's it. No, Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock is not the titular character of Elementary. Rebecca is the titular character of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, but she is not the main character. Julia Roberts' Erin Brockovich is both the titular AND main character of Erin Brockovich. And so on. 

It's a bad use of titular to say Sherlock is that for Elementary, I agree. That said, the only reason the show wasn't called "Sherlock" is because there would have been massive confusion with the UK show if it had been that. "Main character" is kind of lame though. In most cases "protagonist" is a more interesting term. Those terms are not identical either, of course (and then we also get into "hero" as well). One example of this being kind of mixed up I've seen is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  Charlie is the hero of the story, and he's the main character, but arguably Willy Wonka is the Protagonist (because he's the one with the arc to his character, the change, whereas Charlie remains pretty much the same person from the beginning to the end). Or the classic example is To Kill a Mockingbird. Scout is the main character, but Atticus is the Protagonist. 

Even for some current TV I could see this difference in application. One could argue that Beckett, on Castle was much more the Protagonist of that show, even though the main character (and yes, in that case titular character) was Castle. Castle's point of view got followed, but he mostly stayed the same. Beckett was the one who had the arc in terms of transformation.  Or older TV.... hmm. The Pretender.  Jarod was the main character, but Miss Parker arguably became the Protagonist over time. Heck, lets even toss this one at Elementary. You could argue Holmes OR Watson as Protagonist vs. Main character there. Watson is most often the point of view we follow, that's undeniable, but it's kind of debatable who's story overall we're seeing. 

shapeshifter

shapeshifter

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

It's a bad use of titular to say Sherlock is that for Elementary, I agree. That said, the only reason the show wasn't called "Sherlock" is because there would have been massive confusion with the UK show if it had been that. "Main character" is kind of lame though. In most cases "protagonist" is a more interesting term. Those terms are not identical either, of course (and then we also get into "hero" as well). One example of this being kind of mixed up I've seen is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  Charlie is the hero of the story, and he's the main character, but arguably Willy Wonka is the Protagonist (because he's the one with the arc to his character, the change, whereas Charlie remains pretty much the same person from the beginning to the end). Or the classic example is To Kill a Mockingbird. Scout is the main character, but Atticus is the Protagonist. 

Even for some current TV I could see this difference in application. One could argue that Beckett, on Castle was much more the Protagonist of that show, even though the main character (and yes, in that case titular character) was Castle. Castle's point of view got followed, but he mostly stayed the same. Beckett was the one who had the arc in terms of transformation.  Or older TV.... hmm. The Pretender.  Jarod was the main character, but Miss Parker arguably became the Protagonist over time. Heck, lets even toss this one at Elementary. You could argue Holmes OR Watson as Protagonist vs. Main character there. Watson is most often the point of view we follow, that's undeniable, but it's kind of debatable who's story overall we're seeing. 

Sidebar(?):
I see Watson as being to Sherlock (in Elementary) what Jimminy Cricket is to Pinocchio (the Disney version, at least). So, given that, would Watson be the hero and Sherlock the protagonist?

Kromm

Kromm

10 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Sidebar(?):
I see Watson as being to Sherlock (in Elementary) what Jimminy Cricket is to Pinocchio (the Disney version, at least). So, given that, would Watson be the hero and Sherlock the protagonist?

Hoo boy. Debating the protagonist/main character/hero status of Holmes and Watson would really get us into a long discussion! It's distinctly different in the books too, vs. various TV and movie adaptations (with Elementary having some unique aspects).  You certainly see far more/clearer into Watson's psyche on the show, and her circumstances change the most in the short term, but at the same time Holmes is the one with the emotional journey in the long term--albeit one that's completely at odds with the versions of him in almost every other medium and adaptation. 

Here's one I just thought of. Kirk is the hero and main character of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but no way is he the protagonist. 

shapeshifter

shapeshifter

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

Here's one I just thought of. Kirk is the hero and main character of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but no way is he the protagonist. 

I don't know about the movie, but in the original series, Kirk never changed, whereas Spock did. So a plethora of heroes and Spock as the protagonist?

Kromm

Kromm

(edited)
1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

I don't know about the movie, but in the original series, Kirk never changed, whereas Spock did. So a plethora of heroes and Spock as the protagonist?

The movie is another example of a character who's circumstances change (Kirk deciding to forgo his promotion to Admiral) vs. another character who has a much bigger emotional arc (Spock finally accepting his human side).  A good case could be made for Decker too, who I suppose also has what we could describe as a change in circumstances, but it's a far more radical one than Kirk simply getting his ship back. That said, Decker simply doesn't have the screentime to be a protagonist, even though he's key to everything that happens.

Edited by Kromm
Sandman87

Sandman87

8 hours ago, galax-arena said:

I'm tired of people acting like "titular character" is the same thing as "main character." There might be a lot of overlap between the two, but they are NOT the same thing. "Titular" = having to do with the title. That's it. No, Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock is not the titular character of Elementary. Rebecca is the titular character of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, but she is not the main character. Julia Roberts' Erin Brockovich is both the titular AND main character of Erin Brockovich. And so on. 

It never occurred to me that there are people who confuse the two, although I could probably be convinced that some folks think that "titular" has something to do with breasts.

  • Love 2
shapeshifter

shapeshifter

40 minutes ago, Sandman87 said:

It never occurred to me that there are people who confuse the two, although I could probably be convinced that some folks think that "titular" has something to do with breasts.

Maybe they are actually confusing titular with titillating?

9 hours ago, galax-arena said:

I'm tired of people acting like "titular character" is the same thing as "main character." There might be a lot of overlap between the two, but they are NOT the same thing. "Titular" = having to do with the title. That's it. No, Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock is not the titular character of Elementary. Rebecca is the titular character of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, but she is not the main character. Julia Roberts' Erin Brockovich is both the titular AND main character of Erin Brockovich. And so on. 

Galax-Arena, Do you have one of these mistaken comments in context? I'm curious to see if the meaning of titllating would fit--although, if it does, I'm not sure I want to see it, heh.

galax-arena

galax-arena

19 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Galax-Arena, Do you have one of these mistaken comments in context? I'm curious to see if the meaning of titllating would fit--although, if it does, I'm not sure I want to see it, heh.

Haha I don't have the quotes on hand but I can say that nah, that wasn't it. My post was brought on by a) getting into an argument with someone who insisted that I was wrong for not thinking that JLM's Sherlock was the titular character of Elementary and b) people insisting that a Beckett-less Castle would be fine because "the show is called Castle, not Beckett." I guess the latter didn't actually use the word "titular" but... yeah. I don't even watch the show so honestly I can't say whether Castle qualifies as the main character, the protagonist, AND the title character - I mean he's obviously the last one - but I guess I'm tired of people pointing at titles as trump cards as to which characters are the most important. 

  • Love 1
Kromm

Kromm

Google Trends shows the most misspelled word in each state

This is interesting, but I think ultimately BS, because it's based just on searches.

CjYv4ezUgAASqXP.jpg:large

 

If I was going to guess at the most misspelled word? I don't know about offline, but online it would might be "ridiculous" (which it seems to me around 20% of people think is actually spelled "rediculous". Well aside from "their", which gets rendered as "there" (when not correct), AND as "thier". I won't even talk about "its/it's", because then I'd have to admit I'm super-lazy and just type "its" most of the time no matter what.

Kromm

Kromm

38 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I almost never complete a search when I'm checking spelling. Unless they were able to capture keystrokes in the browser search box, I don't see any credibility to these stats.

It's even worse than that. I think it's literally tracking of how many people do "how do I spell {the word}".

  • Love 1
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)
18 minutes ago, ethalfrida said:

The chart says it's about misspelled words.

The headline on the chart is oversimplifiying. What it appears to actually be about is searching the phrase "How To Spell..." Here's the entire tweet that describes it...

The inaccuracy in calculating that starts immediately, because in some cases they're probably just guessing what the intended word is. Most people never even finish typing the word. That little list of possible searches appears in the drop down list and people usually just crib their answer from that without finishing the search.

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 2
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)
12 hours ago, SVNBob said:

Actually, that's Alaska that misspells Hawaii.  But apparently it does apply to Massachusetts.

Yeah, that's damn funny with Massachusetts.

In the case of Alaska I suppose we could theorize that they want to know how to spell Hawaii so they can buy plane tickets OUT of Alaska TO Hawaii...

There's considerable WTFuckery in others of these too, if we try and lay meaning on them. For example, Alabama and "tongue". Not only do we have to contemplate why such an easy word is beyond the fine people of Alabama, but also why it's THAT word. Or Mississippi. I'd almost think that as with Massachusetts, the most common would be the state name, but maybe that children's rhyme takes care of that one. But "Sergeant"?  Huh?  If it had to be something military rankish, the hardest to spell by a mile is Lieutenant.  And Arkansas and Leprechaun? Not that it's an easy word to spell, but the WTF factor of that being the most searched is... incredible. Although apparently the demographics of the state are that 13.6% have Irish ancestry, so maybe the fascination is that lots of Arkansas grannys passed down legends of pots of gold left by little green men. Wyoming and "ornery" makes a certain amount of sense, even if it sounds weird.

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 1
AimingforYoko

AimingforYoko

On 5/9/2016 at 5:04 AM, DHDancer said:

My current hot buttons?  Reign vs rein.  I know horses and knowledge of their saddlery is no longer common knowledge but people talking about reigning in something (vs the correct rein in) is beyond cringe worthy for me.  And related:  to coronate vs to crown -- this one always has me laughing in despair: fortunately it doesn't crop up overly often.....

I see what you did there.

Terrafamilia

Terrafamilia

'Less' and 'fewer' and their companions 'amount' and 'number'. I remember noticing it first a few years ago in an interview on NPR with an executive at Boeing talking about "less airplanes" and "less airports". Since then I've noticed it everywhere. Do teachers not even try anymore?

Another one that really bugs is the confusion between 'then' and 'than'. If it happens once I can accept it as a typo. More than that and the person has a problem.

There was a reality show, or in this case a single episode, a few years ago (I think on FOX) about a model/actress type who wanted to become a TV reporter and got a job at a local station somewhere in Texas or Oklahoma. There was a scene in which the station's established, and rather miffed, young female reporter/anchor was complaining to her coworkers that she "could have went" and become a model if she had wanted to. I laughed my head off (figuratively).

  • Love 5
bilgistic

bilgistic

"Fewer people, less money," is what I've heard, which is to say individual units (fewer) versus a conglomeration (less), but it's not actually a good example. A better "test" is to ask if you can count the thing in question, which is why that saying is a bad example; you can count money.

As for airplanes, you can count them. Say those airplanes flew through turbulence--that would be a situation of fewer airplanes through less turbulence, because you can't count turbulence.

It bugs me, too, obviously.

CoderLady

CoderLady

2 hours ago, bilgistic said:

"Fewer people, less money," is what I've heard, which is to say individual units (fewer) versus a conglomeration (less), but it's not actually a good example. A better "test" is to ask if you can count the thing in question, which is why that saying is a bad example; you can count money.

It still holds up since you have to know which type of money it is. "Fewer people, fewer [dollars, pennies, francs, pesos]" would work since those can be counted.

bilgistic

bilgistic

Something I don't get, but don't see much anymore is "Going out for business". I was reminded of it today when I went to a store that was having a "closeout"/"going out of business" sale, even though they still have a store in the northern part of the county. That's not "going out of business"; that's "we're closing this location, but keeping the other(s) open".

Anyway! Going out for business--what's that about?

legaleagle53

legaleagle53

(edited)
On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 2:28 PM, bilgistic said:

"Fewer people, less money," is what I've heard, which is to say individual units (fewer) versus a conglomeration (less), but it's not actually a good example. A better "test" is to ask if you can count the thing in question, which is why that saying is a bad example; you can count money.

You can count individual units of money:  Coins, nickels, dimes, quarters, pennies, and bills.  You can't count the generic word "money" because the plural of that particular word ("moneys") is archaic and fell out of common usage more than a century ago.  In 2016, it's a generic term that is considered singular and non-countable.

Edited by legaleagle53
Cobalt Stargazer

Cobalt Stargazer

On 5/31/2016 at 7:50 AM, legaleagle53 said:

You can't count the generic word "money" because the plural of that particular word ("moneys") is archaic and fell out of common usage more than a century ago.  In 2016, it's a generic term that is considered singular and non-countable.

Ahem. Monies ;-)

  • Love 1
riley702

riley702

Just to be Devil's advocate and bring up more points to debate ponder:

Dictionaries and Style Guide Don’t Match Actual Usage

It seems as if dictionaries and style guides are lagging actual usage, and I’m not the only person to notice. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage also notes that “Moneys is given preference over monies in all dictionaries . . .Yet general usage in the UK and US is clearly in favor of monies.”

Although the author does admit "monies" irritates them, saying "I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sentence in which someone uses monies when money wouldn’t work."

Other opinions seem to be that the plural form indicates more than one source of money.

  • Love 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...