Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[Milburn Stone]

I don't care if I'm the last person on earth insisting on the use of the singular possessive third-person pronoun when the antecedent is singular, I'm going to continue insisting on it.

Especially because, if the use of their is absolutely necessary to avoid gender, it's so easy to write a sentence that's correct.

Instead of allowing gender-avoidance to force an incorrect use of their (for instance, "everyone should vote their conscience"), simply make the antecedent plural and be correct ("all people should vote their consciences"). What could be simpler?

Edited October 3, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Fairfax]

You are not the last person on earth who insists on it, but our little corner is hardly crowded & seems to be growing more empty by the day.

[legaleagle53]

Especially since singular "they" has actually been in use since the 1400s. It's just become more noticeable now.

[riley702]

23 hours ago, topanga said:

Hear, hear! Newscasters don't need to sound nasally or monotone, but my ears scream for proper enunciation and diction. (Can ears scream?). 

They can bleed, apparently.

[shapeshifter]

On October 3, 2017 at 2:01 AM, topanga said:

On September 29, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Ohwell said:

On my local news channel, there's a weather woman who says "cumminup" for "coming up," and now it seems to have infected the rest of the news cast.  Before the news break to commercials and the upcoming news stories, just about every one of them says cumminup and it drives me crazy.  I've watched this channel for years but I just might have to switch now. 

(Can ears scream?). 

Mine do, although It's more commonly called tinnitus. 
Since the offending pronunciation is really just a contraction (try picturing it as comin') it doesn't really bother me.

[Milburn Stone]

The other day, the chyron on CNN or somewhere spelled my state as Illinios. 

It was up there for a solid minute, which in TV time is like an hour and a half.

It amazes me not so much that a chyron-writer can make a mistake (we all can), but that no one else in the control room is apparently watching the broadcast.

[Ohwell]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Mine do, although It's more commonly called tinnitus. 
Since the offending pronunciation is really just a contraction (try picturing it as comin') it doesn't really bother me.

I never thought of dropping the "g" at the end of a word as a contraction.  A contraction to me is something like "isn't" for "is not."  Whatever the case, while it doesn't bother you, it does bother the hell out of me.

[Bastet]

8 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

It amazes me not so much that a chyron-writer can make a mistake (we all can), but that no one else in the control room is apparently watching the broadcast.

Maybe if they didn't have so damn much on the screen at once, someone would have noticed sooner.

[GaT]

Should the title of this thread be changed to reflect the new reality of the word "literally"? 

[topanga]

On 10/4/2017 at 4:49 PM, GaT said:

Should the title of this thread be changed to reflect the new reality of the word "literally"? 

Which is what?

[GaT]

1 hour ago, topanga said:

Which is what?

They have officially changed the definition to include the meaning for emphasis as in "I literally died" I personally hate it when used it's used like that, but it's no longer considered to be incorrect usage.

Merriam Webster

:in effect :virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible

will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice

 —Norman Cousins

Oxford Dictionary

1.1informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true.

‘I was literally blown away by the response I got’

Cambridge Dictionary

 Literally is also used to emphasize a statement and suggest that it is surprising:

I literally (= really) had no idea you and Sophie were coming.

MacMillan Dictionary

used when you are describing something in an extreme way that cannot be true

When I told him the news he literally exploded.

Synonyms and related words

Ways of emphasizing completeness or extremeness:complete, completely, entire...

[topanga]

3 minutes ago, GaT said:

They have officially changed the definition to include the meaning for emphasis as in "I literally died" I personally hate it when used it's used like that, but it's no longer considered to be incorrect usage.

Merriam Webster

:in effect :virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible

will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice

 —Norman Cousins

Oxford Dictionary

1.1informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true.

‘I was literally blown away by the response I got’

Cambridge Dictionary

 Literally is also used to emphasize a statement and suggest that it is surprising:

I literally (= really) had no idea you and Sophie were coming.

MacMillan Dictionary

used when you are describing something in an extreme way that cannot be true

When I told him the news he literally exploded.

Synonyms and related words

Ways of emphasizing completeness or extremeness:complete, completely, entire...

Noooooo!!

So we changed the definition of a word just because people were using it incorrectly?

What's next? Is it going to be okay to say that diet soda has less calories than regular soda or that I need to lay down for my nap?

They're winning. The grammar slobs are f-ing winning. What does that say for the future of the English language? (I'm being dramatic but not at all facetious).   

[GaT]

23 minutes ago, topanga said:

Noooooo!!

So we changed the definition of a word just because people were using it incorrectly?

What's next? Is it going to be okay to say that diet soda has less calories than regular soda or that I need to lay down for my nap?

They're winning. The grammar slobs are f-ing winning. What does that say for the future of the English language? (I'm being dramatic but not at all facetious).   

According to the dictionaries, they reflect the language, they don't monitor it, so yes, if enough people continually use a word incorrectly, then it becomes part of the language. If I start seeing the word "alot" in dictionaries my brain will explode. 

[Milburn Stone]

It gets lonelier and lonelier being right.

[Ohwell]

31 minutes ago, GaT said:

If I start seeing the word "alot" in dictionaries my brain will explode. 

Oh, it's coming.  Or, should I say, cumminup!

[bilgistic]

I refuse--REFUSE--to acknowledge or accept the incorrect usage of "literally"!

[Ohwell]

There will come a time when there won't be any point in having a fucking dictionary anymore.  I'm depressed now.

[supposebly]

56 minutes ago, GaT said:

If I start seeing the word "alot" in dictionaries my brain will explode. 

It's been going on forever. another, apart, afar, alone used to be two words. I'm sure no one's brain ever exploded because language use and rules change.

 

51 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

It gets lonelier and lonelier being right.

Every generation changes language use. Being right is relative when it comes to language.

[Ohwell]

3 minutes ago, supposebly said:

I'm sure no one's brain ever exploded because language use and rules change.

I'm not so sure about that.

[Milburn Stone]

3 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

There will come a time when there won't be any point in having a fucking dictionary anymore.  I'm depressed now.

And--even more alarming, I think--there won't be any point in teaching fucking grammar. If whatever people say is ipso facto correct because they said it.

[supposebly]

11 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

There will come a time when there won't be any point in having a fucking dictionary anymore.  I'm depressed now.

Dictionaries are not a constitution on how language is supposed to be used. They are just a reflection of language use. The good thing is that online dictionaries can keep up a little better than when they had to be printed. Language changes a lot faster than print editions can reflect. Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary of English has words in it no one has used in ages. Or words we know but have changed meaning a long time ago. He complained about how people used words at the time as well.

Again, rules of grammar change as well. And as a linguist, I wish grammar were taught in schools. When I don't have to explain to my first year students that nouns aren't things, I will be very happy.

Edited October 9, 2017 by supposebly

[Ohwell]

In the very near future, I can just imagine some little fart correcting his/her English teacher, because who's to say what's "right" anymore?

3 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Dictionaries are not a constitution on how language is supposed to be used. They are just a reflection of language use. The good thing is that online dictionaries can keep up a little better than when they had to be printed. Language changes a lot faster than print editions can reflect. Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary of English has words in it no one has used in ages. Or words we know but have changed meaning a long time ago. He complained about how people used words at the time as well.

Oh, ok, so is that how "supposedly" became "supposebly"?

[supposebly]

No, it's a quote from Friends on how Joe mispronounced it. As a second-language speaker of English, I probably thought it more funny than it had any right to be.

Edited October 9, 2017 by supposebly

[Ohwell]

Yeah, I wouldn't rely on Joey for language guidance.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, supposebly said:

No, it's a quote from Friends on how Joe mispronounced it. As a second-language speaker of English, I probably thought it more funny than it had any right to be.

It isn't just Friends. One of the actresses on General Hospital is constantly saying 'supposebly', to the point that one of her co-stars picked it up.

[Bastet]

I freely admit to taking inconsistent stances towards the fact language inevitably evolves over time, choosing to get on my high horse about some changes and not caring a whit about many.  It seems, though, that in the past decade or so, there have been an increasing number that have riled me up. 

I'm still annoyed by "nonplussed" shifting to be accepted as meaning its exact opposite, so "literally" doing the same is probably something I'll still be muttering about in the nursing home.

[Ohwell]

12 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

It isn't just Friends. One of the actresses on General Hospital is constantly saying 'supposebly', to the point that one of her co-stars picked it up.

Right, it isn't just Friends.  I've heard some people say it (not that many, thank goodness), but I've found that those are the ones who generally use incorrect grammar anyway.

[GaT]

My question was never answered, should the title of this thread be changed to remove the "literally" reference?

[supposebly]

One explanation for supposebly I have seen is that English allows words with [bl] but not with [dl] at the beginning of syllables. 

If you syllabify supposedly with [dly] as the last syllable, then [dl] is disallowed as last syllable. 

Thus, speakers tend to replace it with [bl] or make [d] the last sound of the preceding syllable.

So, the syllables would be sup-po-sed-ly while others syllabify sup-po-se-bly, thus avoiding the ill-formed [dly]. I'm not clear on how that explains why that only seems to happen with supposedly though.

For a new thread title, I put forward: Language Pet Peeves on TV. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, GaT said:

My question was never answered, should the title of this thread be changed to remove the "literally" reference?

I was thinking it could be:
"LITERALLY!" (USING THE PRE-n MEANING OF THE WORD AS THE STANDARD) AND OTHER OFFENDERS ON THE GRAMMAR POLICE DOCKET
 where n is the date of the change. Unfortunately, when I consulted the OED, I found:

Quote

 c.  colloq. Used to indicate that some (frequently conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’.Now one of the most common uses, although often considered irregular in standard English since it reverses the original sense of literally (‘not figuratively or metaphorically’).

1769    F. Brooke Hist. Emily Montague IV. ccxvii. 83   He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies.

1801    Spirit of Farmers' Museum 262   He is, literally, made up of marechal powder, cravat, and bootees.

1825    J. Denniston Legends Galloway 99   Lady Kirkclaugh, who, literally worn to a shadow, died of a broken heart.

1863    F. A. Kemble Jrnl. Resid. Georgian Plantation 105   For the last four years..I literally coined money.

1876    ‘M. Twain’ Adventures Tom Sawyer ii. 20   And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth.

1906    Westm. Gaz. 15 Nov. 2/1   Mr. Chamberlain literally bubbled over with gratitude.

1975    Chem. Week (Nexis) 26 Mar. 10   ‘They're literally throwing money at these programs,’ said a Ford Administration official.

2008    Herald-Times (Bloomington, Indiana) 22 Oct.  a8/1   ‘OMG, I literally died when I found out!’ No, you figuratively died. Otherwise, you would not be around to relay your pointless anecdote.

So pick a year, folks.

Or maybe:
"LITERALLY!" (WITH THE ORIGINAL SENSE OF THE WORD AS THE STANDARD) AND OTHER OFFENDERS ON THE GRAMMAR POLICE DOCKET

Edited October 9, 2017 by shapeshifter

[Moose135]

2 hours ago, Ohwell said:

There will come a time when there won't be any point in having a fucking dictionary anymore.  I'm depressed now.

They can have my dictionary when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

 

2 hours ago, Bastet said:

I'm still annoyed by "nonplussed" shifting to be accepted as meaning its exact opposite, so "literally" doing the same is probably something I'll still be muttering about in the nursing home.

You and me both, @Bastet.  Maybe they can park us next to each other in the home so it doesn't look like we're just muttering to ourselves. ;-)

 

2 hours ago, GaT said:

My question was never answered, should the title of this thread be changed to remove the "literally" reference?

No, I think it should stay exactly as it is.

[GaT]

More so, more so, MORE SO, not moreso.

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, GaT said:

More so, more so, MORE SO, not moreso.

The OED definition for "more," section C.I.1.f. shows:

Quote

more so (also, chiefly U.S., moreso).

[Ohwell]

I've only seen it written as "moreso."  

[Milburn Stone]

49 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I've only seen it written as "moreso."  

I've always thought this to be correct also, but whenever I type it, spellcheck tells me I'm wrong. 

[Ohwell]

16 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I've always thought this to be correct also, but whenever I type it, spellcheck tells me I'm wrong. 

Wow, that's strange.  

[CoderLady]

"Moreso" sucks, damnit. It's "more so." Two words. And "infact" is another inexplicable abomination from the same swamp. I'd love to know why the space character suddenly became superfluous: it's not that hard to type if you have opposable thumbs. Grr. 

[legaleagle53]

1 hour ago, CoderLady said:

"Moreso" sucks, damnit. It's "more so." Two words. And "infact" is another inexplicable abomination from the same swamp. I'd love to know why the space character suddenly became superfluous: it's not that hard to type if you have opposable thumbs. Grr. 

Mileage varies according to country, as @shapeshifter noted above.  The language, she is evolving.  It really makes me wonder what we'll be speaking in 3017.

[Ohwell]

32 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

It really makes me wonder what we'll be speaking in 3017.

Good thing you/we won't have to worry about it. ; )

[supposebly]

32 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

It really makes me wonder what we'll be speaking in 3017.

Probably something that we wouldn't understand very well today. While we probably would understand 1917 English (although I wouldn't be so sure about many British dialects), I feel things are changing much faster now compared to the pre-digital age since there is a higher literacy rate on average, much more language contact, many many more first language speakers of some variant of English, plus more second language speakers than first language speakers.

Or maybe I'm just getting old and it simply feels that way.

[legaleagle53]

34 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Probably something that we wouldn't understand very well today. While we probably would understand 1917 English (although I wouldn't be so sure about many British dialects), I feel things are changing much faster now compared to the pre-digital age since there is a higher literacy rate on average, much more language contact, many many more first language speakers of some variant of English, plus more second language speakers than first language speakers.

Or maybe I'm just getting old and it simply feels that way.

Oh, the English of 2117 doesn't worry me.  But 3017 is as far removed from us as 1017 is in the other direction, and most of us wouldn't be able to understand a word of Beowulf (which dates back even farther than that) without a translation.  Even Chaucer (14th Century) needs a little help to be accessible, and much of Shakespeare (only 400 years ago) goes right over the heads of today's audiences. 

Modern communications technology may slow things down a bit, (so English even 400 years from now may still be understandable), but it can't stop linguistic evolution altogether. So you're right that the standard English of 3017 may well be as unintelligible to us as Beowulf and Chaucer are today.

Edited October 14, 2017 by legaleagle53

[shapeshifter]

16 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

Modern communications technology may slow things down a bit,

Advanced communication capabilities have definitely made it easier for humans to grasp new word meanings, but I thought the creation of new words and/or meanings was increasing faster rather than slowing down, right? In addition to new devices (desktop --> laptop --> smartphone) there are even more things to do with them (save, delete, online, email, post, chat, tweet, like, ghost, etc.)

[legaleagle53]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Advanced communication capabilities have definitely made it easier for humans to grasp new word meanings, but I thought the creation of new words and/or meanings was increasing faster rather than slowing down, right? In addition to new devices (desktop --> laptop --> smartphone) there are even more things to do with them (save, delete, online, email, post, chat, tweet, like, ghost, etc.)

I was referring more to the way that English syntax and grammar are likely to evolve over the next 1,000 years compared to the way they've evolved over the past 1,000 years. One of the reasons that the English of 2017 is nothing like the English of 1017 (which is closer to German in terms of syntax and grammar) is that written communications technology was much more limited, so people were more inclined to make "mistakes" that relatively quickly in the history of the language meant the end of gender and case in most nouns and adjectives, anarchy in the use of the subjunctive and of the passive voice, and complete chaos when it comes to the use of personal and relative pronouns and even subject-verb agreement.  Modern communication technology should, to some extent, slow that evolution down by demonstrating some sort of common standard, but it won't stop it entirely.  By 3017, I fully expect to see the subjunctive gone for good from the language and the complete breakdown of what's left of the case system among personal pronouns.  In other words, the things that drive us crazy in this particular thread will be absolute nothingburgers to the speakers of English in 3017, because they will be considered the standard at that time, and our language will be almost as incomprehensible to them as Beowulf is to us.

[shapeshifter]

And "nothingburgers" is a derivative of the German. ;-)

[PradaKitty]

1. What the hell id a meter-ologist? I know what a meteorologist is, but all I seem to hear now is meter-ologist.
2. Why do local stations pronounce the word "mayor" as "mare" ?  Is a female horse now the leader of city government?
3. Don't get me started on "nucluer"......

[mojito]

Is it time for grammarians to retreat and form a new line and prepare to fight the battle to prevent U R, 2,  4,  OTOH, CU, etc. from becoming acceptable in formal writing?

After reading many of these posts, I'm wondering. 

[riley702]

Never retreat!

[Sandman87]

On 10/19/2017 at 10:52 AM, PradaKitty said:

1. What the hell id a meter-ologist? I know what a meteorologist is, but all I seem to hear now is meter-ologist.
2. Why do local stations pronounce the word "mayor" as "mare" ?  Is a female horse now the leader of city government?
3. Don't get me started on "nucluer"......

1. A scientist who studies meters.

Incidentally, we used to have a local newscaster who pronounced the word as "meta-urologist."

2. It's probably just the back end in some cities.

3. And nuculear. And nucler.

[legaleagle53]

17 hours ago, mojito said:

Is it time for grammarians to retreat and form a new line and prepare to fight the battle to prevent U R, 2,  4,  OTOH, CU, etc. from becoming acceptable in formal writing?

After reading many of these posts, I'm wondering. 

Formal writing?  Only over my dead body!

[shapeshifter]

22 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Formal writing?  Only over my dead body!

That may come to pass literally over our dead bodies.