Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[Sandman87]

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

That may come to pass literally over our dead bodies.

"Hey you kids, stop waving that badly written material over my coffin! And get off of my Forest Lawn!"

[mojito]

LOL. FWIW, ITA. 

[SVNBob]

Some of us are going to need to fine-tune our issues with this one:

[Milburn Stone]

I'm grateful she came around to saying that irregardless is unacceptable in formal/written English. For a while there I thought she was making the case that a non-word becomes a word because a lot of ill-educated people say it. 

(I recognize there are those who would make exactly this case. Regardless, I maintain the opposite.)

[legaleagle53]

On 10/22/2017 at 6:01 AM, Milburn Stone said:

I'm grateful she came around to saying that irregardless is unacceptable in formal/written English. For a while there I thought she was making the case that a non-word becomes a word because a lot of ill-educated people say it. 

(I recognize there are those who would make exactly this case. Regardless, I maintain the opposite.)

Yet another thing that will have completely changed within a few hundred years.  "Irregardless" will be seen as the norm and "regardless" as the archaic anomaly.

Face it, my fellow Grammar Nazis.  While we may fight the good fight until our dying breaths, we are nevertheless fighting a losing battle and are akin to those who stand in the way of history screaming "HALT!" at the top of their lungs.

Edited October 23, 2017 by legaleagle53

[Milburn Stone]

6 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Yet another thing that will have completely changed within a few hundred years.  "Irregardless" will be seen as the norm and "regardless" as the archaic anomaly.

Face it, my fellow Grammar Nazis.  While we may fight the good fight until our dying breaths, we are nevertheless fighting a losing battle and are akin to those who stand in the way of history screaming "HALT!" at the top of their lungs.

Without disputing the truth of what you say, I think there's still an argument to be made for standards.

Yes, eventually, "irregardless" may well be the preferred form. But in any given time, there are ways people speak that communicate that they've received a decent education and possess a modicum of intelligence, and there are ways people speak that communicate the opposite on both counts. And to the extent that we value education and intelligence--and believe that a society that devalues education and intelligence is an unhealthy society--we are not wrong to insist on the superiority of correct grammar.

[legaleagle53]

12 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Without disputing the truth of what you say, I think there's still an argument to be made for standards.

Yes, eventually, "irregardless" may well be the preferred form. But in any given time, there are ways people speak that communicate that they've received a decent education and possess a modicum of intelligence, and there are ways people speak that communicate the opposite on both counts. And to the extent that we value education and intelligence--and believe that a society that devalues education and intelligence is an unhealthy society--we are not wrong to insist on the superiority of correct grammar.

Oh, I didn't say we shouldn't still insist on standards.  I'm just saying that given the way the language appears to be inevitably and inexorably evolving, who knows what those standards will actually be in a few hundred years?  The educated English speakers of 1017 (and yes, those existed) would probably be as horrified to hear how we've "butchered" their language as we are to see the disappearance of the subjunctive, total anarchy with regard to the use of case when it comes to pronouns, and such current abominations as "literally" used purely as a meaningless intensifier rather than with its actual meaning and "irregardless" as an emphatic form of "regardless."

Edited October 24, 2017 by legaleagle53

[Ohwell]

I love these intelligent, thoughtful conversations. : )

[GaT]

5 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

Oh, I didn't say we shouldn't still insist on standards.  I'm just saying that given the way the language appears to be inevitably and inexorably evolving, who knows what those standards will actually be in a few hundred years?  

The emergence of texting & internet "speak" has completely changed the English language IMO. If someone popular sends out something that's incorrect, it's picked up by tons of people & they start using it too & it becomes part of the language (and that's how the word "literally" got destroyed). In a hundred years I wouldn't be surprised if people don't remember that there used to be a "yo" before "u"  or that "4" was ever spelt "for".  Instead of checking how to spell a word, people just type it as it sounds (who doesn't use spell check? which by the way, is two words, not one). The other day I saw a post about "borritos", & I kept seeing the word "walla" all over the place & couldn't figure out what it meant until someone told me it was supposed to be "voilà". And if you point out a misuse, then people think there's something wrong with you. Yesterday I was on Reddit & saw a skin care article that contained the sentence "My skin was so taught and shiny". When I pointed out that it should be "taut" not "taught", 3 people downvoted me. It's like living in the age of idiots.

Edited October 23, 2017 by GaT

[legaleagle53]

8 hours ago, GaT said:

The emergence of texting & internet "speak" has completely changed the English language IMO. If someone popular sends out something that's incorrect, it's picked up by tons of people & they start using it too & it becomes part of the language (and that's how the word "literally" got destroyed). In a hundred years I wouldn't be surprised if people don't remember that there used to be a "yo" before "u"  or that "4" was ever spelt "for".  Instead of checking how to spell a word, people just type it as it sounds (who doesn't use spell check? which by the way, is two words, not one). The other day I saw a post about "borritos", & I kept seeing the word "walla" all over the place & couldn't figure out what it meant until someone told me it was supposed to be "voilà". And if you point out a misuse, then people think there's something wrong with you. Yesterday I was on Reddit & saw a skin care article that contained the sentence "My skin was so taught and shiny". When I pointed out that it should be "taut" not "taught", 3 people downvoted me. It's like living in the age of idiots.

Who knew that "Idiocracy" was a documentary?

[supposebly]

9 hours ago, GaT said:

The emergence of texting & internet "speak" has completely changed the English language IMO. If someone popular sends out something that's incorrect, it's picked up by tons of people & they start using it too & it becomes part of the language (and that's how the word "literally" got destroyed).

As far as I know, wrong spellings have often become popular and writing informally on the internet or on your phone is just speeding up the process. One example are a lot of words that start with 'a' used to be two words: apart, alone, adrift. People started spelling them together and now we don't even remember that they used to be two.

I find it interesting to see which spelling of two words that are pronounced identically becomes the one that people tend to go for. I would have thought taut would have been the choice since it is simpler and with fewer 'silent' letters. Apparently, they went for spelling of a word that might be used more often.

I keep thinking texting is more like speaking. Therefore, people go with pronunciation and ignore the vast randomness of English spelling. I mean it's almost as bad as French spelling. There are whole poems that collect its randomness: https://spelling.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/english-pronunciation/

I wonder which one would be the go-to version for the color red vs. past tense of read. Would people prefer to spell them red or read? 

Edited October 24, 2017 by supposebly

[Ohwell]

I'm seeing "should of" and "could of" increasingly lately.  Drives me nuts.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I'm seeing "should of" and "could of" increasingly lately.  Drives me nuts.  

PREACH!!!! This drives me batshit crazy. As does spelling "to" when in context, the writer means "too." I could go on and on, but it would make my head explode.

[bilgistic]

"Do to..." instead of "due to..."

Kill it with fire!

[Annber03]

Oh, wow, that's a thing? I haven't seen that one yet. Yikes. 

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

As does spelling "to" when in context, the writer means "too." I could go on and on, but it would make my head explode.

Same. On a similar note, the whole "pique"/"peek"/"peak" thing also gets me all twitchy. I see people confuse those three words all. the. time. There's a difference!

[GaT]

4 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Oh, wow, that's a thing? I haven't seen that one yet. Yikes. 

Same. On a similar note, the whole "pique"/"peek"/"peak" thing also gets me all twitchy. I see people confuse those three words all. the. time. There's a difference!

How about "bare" & "bear"? That's always fun

[Annber03]

LOL, yes! Some really awkward sentences can come from confusing those two words. 

[Ohwell]

Another thing that bugs me is confusing "sympathy" with "empathy."  I've always thought of sympathy as meaning "I'm sorry for what's happened to you" and empathy as meaning "I've been in your shoes, I know how you feel, and I'm sorry."  I'm hearing people saying they empathize when many times they mean they sympathize, and vice versa.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, bilgistic said:

"Do to..." instead of "due to..."

Kill it with fire!

Oh, don't even get me started, because from 'do to' we go to 'breath' instead of 'breathe'.

[riley702]

4 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Another thing that bugs me is confusing "sympathy" with "empathy."  I've always thought of sympathy as meaning "I'm sorry for what's happened to you" and empathy as meaning "I've been in your shoes, I know how you feel, and I'm sorry."  I'm hearing people saying they empathize when many times they mean they sympathize, and vice versa.

Slight segue (that I see written segway - argh!), I hate when you sympathize with someone's tale of woe and say you're sorry, and they respond with "It isn't your fault." WTF? It has happened so often, I just respond, "Sympathy here, not guilt."

Edited October 25, 2017 by riley702

[shapeshifter]

5 minutes ago, riley702 said:

Slight segue (that I see written segway - argh!), I hate when you sympathize with someone's tale of woe and say you're sorry, and they respond with "It isn't your fault." WTF? It has happened so often, I just respond, "Sympathy here, not guilt."

I seem to be hearing (and being annoyed by) this a lot lately. I hope it is the language's shortest lived fad.

[riley702]

And we're losing the fight on pronouncing short-lived and long-lived correctly, too.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2014/09/lived.html

Edited October 25, 2017 by riley702

[CoderLady]

39 minutes ago, riley702 said:

And we're losing the fight on pronouncing short-lived and long-lived correctly, too.

I've learned more from reading than from hearing so I have a pretty good vocabulary, but there are a lot of words I get mental sweaty palms about pronouncing. Pronouncing these two are on that list. What's correct, please?

[riley702]

Long I, as it was originally written long-lifed. The ambiguity came about when the spelling slid into -lived and people didn't know the origin of the expression. I added a link to my post discussing this.

[shapeshifter]

57 minutes ago, riley702 said:

And we're losing the fight on pronouncing short-lived and long-lived correctly, too.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2014/09/lived.html

Quote

this new spelling, American Heritage says, “introduced an ambiguity; it was no longer clear from the spelling that the word came from the noun life, but rather looked as though it came from the verb live.”

Thus the new pronunciation was introduced, and over the years it has come to be accepted as standard English, along with the traditional pronunciation.

Thus the short Is have it. 
This was a much better pun when I heard it in my head.

[riley702]

I still and will pronounce it with the long i it is supposed to have, you heathen!

[MaryPatShelby]

This is such a small thing, but it drives me insane anyway - when people are commenting in writing about something cute, and they write "awe....." instead of "aw.....".  And no, I don't think it's because they're in awe of the cute thing.  I know; it's so minor, and I have no idea why it's the hill I've chosen to die on.

[bilgistic]

I hate it. I'll be in your comrade-in-arms.

[Haleth]

It could have been auto correct, which is simultaneously the bane of my existence and the greatest thing ever.

[Milburn Stone]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

It could have been auto correct, which is simultaneously the bane of my existence and the greatest thing ever.

I know. It will be great if the next generation of artificial intelligence is able to learn to distinguish when we mean to type a word the way we typed it, dammit, from when we didn't mean to type a word the way we typed it, dammit.

[biakbiak]

6 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I know. It will be great if the next generation of artificial intelligence is able to learn to distinguish when we mean to type a word the way we typed it, dammit, from when we didn't mean to type a word the way we typed it, dammit.

I never mean ducking, I always mean fucking!

[mojito]

Has anyone brought up the use of "ideals" when the word should be "ideas"?

[Milburn Stone]

How about the use of "poignant" when "pointed" is clearly what's meant?

If I hear it once, I hear it a hundred times in a year.

[legaleagle53]

9 hours ago, mojito said:

Has anyone brought up the use of "ideals" when the word should be "ideas"?

Huh.  Well, that's new.

 

9 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

How about the use of "poignant" when "pointed" is clearly what's meant?

If I hear it once, I hear it a hundred times in a year.

And so is that.  Where in TV Land have you heard examples of these two abuses of the English language?

Edited October 29, 2017 by legaleagle53

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

And so is that.  Where in TV Land have you heard examples of [this abuse] of the English language?

One place I hear the poignant/pointed error repeatedly is cable news.

Your question raises a question in turn. The discussion of language abuses on this thread has ranged far afield of television to include the culture and society at large. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the conversation be pulled back to television alone. Are you?

Edited October 29, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[mojito]

Quote

And so is that.  Where in TV Land have you heard examples of these two abuses of the English language?

legaleagle53, I hadn't  heard that one either, but heard "ideals" for "ideas" far too many times. Don't think it's a regional thing, either. The speakers were decently educated. 

Gotta admit, it wasn't too long ago I learned how you're supposed to say the word "bury". Shocked the crap out of me. I just always thought it was commonly pronounced that way in the same way that many people don't acknowledge the second "R" in February or acknowledge the "T" in often. Just one of those odd things.

[legaleagle53]

2 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

One place I hear the poignant/pointed error repeatedly is cable news.

Your question raises a question in turn. The discussion of language abuses on this thread has ranged far afield of television to include the culture and society at large. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the conversation be pulled back to television alone. Are you?

Well, this IS a television discussion site first and foremost, after all, and while the mods do tend to give us a considerable bit of leeway in this particular thread, I wouldn't want to antagonize them by getting too far off-topic. Does that make sense?

[shapeshifter]

26 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Well, this IS a television discussion site first and foremost, after all, and while the mods do tend to give us a considerable bit of leeway in this particular thread, I wouldn't want to antagonize them by getting too far off-topic. Does that make sense?

As a TWoP alum, I have the same ingrained paranoia of mods, but I really would like to have at least one example of the malapropism. I've decided against posting if I can't recall the context, but I think it would be fine to post, "I can't recall the context, but I have been hearing word1 for word2. Can someone else give an example?"

[mojito]

Quote

Well, this IS a television discussion site first and foremost, after all, and while the mods do tend to give us a considerable bit of leeway in this particular thread, I wouldn't want to antagonize them by getting too far off-topic. 

It doesn't seem the moderators are antagonized. They can step in at any time. Or posters can report the offending posts.

Edited October 29, 2017 by mojito

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, mojito said:

It doesn't seem the moderators are antagonized. They can step in at any time. Or posters can report the offending posts.

That's how I see it, too. We now have 42 pages of discussion, much of which has ranged far afield from "examples I heard on television" without summoning moderator intervention. I interpret that to mean we're OK.

That said, the next time I hear the "poignant/pointed" error on TV, @shapeshifter, I will make a note to report it here. I have a feeling it won't be long.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[shapeshifter]

Something we might be seeing or hearing in the next week (from livescience.com):

Quote

On Nov. 5, most Americans will set their clocks back an hour, as daylight saving time (sometimes erroneously called daylight savings time) comes to an end for the year.

[SunnyBeBe]

I know that I am far from perfect, but, I will still participate in this thread.  lol

VERY often people will be describing The Gulf of Mexico, but, they pronounce it GOLF.  I've noticed a fair number of news reporters say it that way.  Is that an acceptable way to pronounce it?  I suppose being from the south, I hear them as very different. 

I also am quite shocked at how often people on tv use the wrong tense for see.  They often say, "I seen."  It drives me crazy.  Wouldn't you think they might think to say, I have seen or I saw?  I seem to hear it all the time, especially, on the ID Discovery channel, where it's not only the witnesses and police officers, who use those terms,  but even the narrator of the show!  I'm not kidding. 

[Sandman87]

A little gem from the noon newscast on a local channel regarding what happened in NY yesterday: "He drove for about a mile, running over people and bicyclists." There's apparently a difference between the two.

[Joe]

So this popped up on Twitter. Are we the kid or the sherrif? Or both?

[supposebly]

I'm sure I've heard this on TV first:

They share something in common.

From all I know about English, it's HAVE something in common but SHARE something.

[Milburn Stone]

9 minutes ago, supposebly said:

I'm sure I've heard this on TV first:

They share something in common.

From all I know about English, it's HAVE something in common but SHARE something.

Correct, because "share something in common" is a redundancy.

[bmasters9]

On 11/4/2017 at 0:09 PM, Milburn Stone said:

Correct, because "share something in common" is a redundancy.

And it's a redundancy because "sharing" implies commonality, I take it?

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, bmasters9 said:

And it's a redundancy because "sharing" implies commonality, I take it?

Yes. If two things (or people) share a trait, then by definition they have that in common. And vice versa.

You can say "They share a belief a democracy." Or you can say "They hold a belief in democracy in common." Both ways fully communicate the thought. To say "They share a belief in democracy in common" is redundant.

[Fairfax]

I've heard a couple of people on TV refer to sexual harassment in show biz & politics as being "systemic", meaning that it's "pervasive", which is consistent with the context of their remarks:  "it's everywhere, by anyone!".   But then Norah O'Donnell's comment about Charlie Rose on the CBS morning show bemoaned the "systematic" abuse that seems to be plaguing her industry & our society, which is not what she meant to say.  She's an educated & articulate professional speaker who should know better.

[Pallas]

In an increasingly unhorsed society: "free reign" for "free rein," and even "reign it in."  Also "she's a trooper" rather than "trouper" -- a soldier rather than a touring actor.