Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[Ohwell]

I'm increasingly hearing newscasters dropping the "g's" from gerunds.  I think they feel that it makes them more relatable, but it makes me hate them.   Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings are rolling in their graves. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Brookside said:

21:  Using "there's" instead of "there are."  

;-)

Don't you mean their/they're.

[Ohwell]

Jose Diaz Balart, the weekend news anchor for NBC, always signs off saying, "Thank you for the privilege of your time."  That just sounds...cumbersome because the word "privilege" sounds out of place.  Maybe it's just my nitpick?    

[Ohwell]

*sigh*

I received in the mail today my county's brochure on adult education classes.  There's a section on English classes and one of the courses is for TOEFL  Preperation.

[Sandman87]

On 12/13/2018 at 10:52 PM, Jacqs said:

Grisly end - to die in a gruesome way

Grizzly end - to die in a gruesome way at the hands of a bear

"Grizzly end" could also refer to a bear's butt.

[AimingforYoko]

On 12/30/2018 at 12:40 AM, Sandman87 said:

"Grizzly end" could also refer to a bear's butt.

An even more 'grisly' way to die.

[Sandman87]

"Area man killed by the Charmin Bears - Witnesses say that he did not 'enjoy the go.'"

[shapeshifter]

It does break my heart a little that writers and editors are being paid who don't know the difference between "climatic" and "climactic"—unless, of course, the final act of Mr. Robot will involve an apocalypse caused by climate change. I suppose that's possible. I want to add something clever about "four great seasons of television," but I can't quite do it. 

From:
"Rami Malek and Christian Slater Tease 'Very, Very Climatic' Ending to 'Mr. Robot' (Exclusive)," by Jennifer Drysdale‍, January 4, 2019, etonline.com/rami-malek-and-christian-slater-tease-very-very-climatic-ending-to-mr-robot-exclusive-116667

 "'So, it's going to be a very, very, climatic ending to what I think has been four great seasons of television'" (qtd. by Drysdale).

Edited January 8, 2019 by shapeshifter
clarity

[AimingforYoko]

13 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

"'So, it's going to be a very, very, climatic ending to what I think has been four great seasons of television.'"

I see what you did there.

[Sandman87]

On 1/7/2019 at 1:22 AM, shapeshifter said:

"'So, it's going to be a very, very, climatic ending to what I think has been four great seasons of television'" (qtd. by Drysdale).

Reminds me of the old Dilbert strip where his miniature weather-system experiment didn't work out. Very "anti-climatic."

 

I just saw a segment on the local news where the county Sheriff informed me that "These additional beds being added to the county jail means that the jail will have more beds." I'm worried that I may have a hand-shaped bruise on my face now. I should learn to facepalm less vigorously.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Sandman87

[Cobalt Stargazer]

[shapeshifter]

(derived from eatliver.com/thesaurus)

Edited January 17, 2019 by shapeshifter

[rur]

On 1/13/2019 at 2:39 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

As much as I like this and am waiting to be able to use "of" in this way in a response, I feel obligated to mention the elephant in the room: agreement error!

[supposebly]

You don't SAY you should of. The problem that people are having is that should've and should of sound (almost) identical, that's why people SPELL it wrong. There's nothing wrong with how they talk. So, that joke really doesn't work except in writing. 

Where is the agreement error?

[rur]

17 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Where is the agreement error?

someone/they

[supposebly]

You mean singular they to avoid the dreaded he or she? That's called binding or co-reference, not agreement. At least in Linguistics. I'm not sure about the popular usage.

According to Merriam Webster, that has been in use since the 1300s.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they

Edited January 19, 2019 by supposebly

[shapeshifter]

20 minutes ago, supposebly said:

You mean singular they to avoid the dreaded he or she? That's called binding or co-reference, not agreement. At least in Linguistics. I'm not sure about the popular usage.

According to Merriam Webster, that has been in use since the 1300s.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they

Thanks for posting this^^.
Especially interesting to me was, ". . . the development of singular they mirrors the development of the singular you from the plural you . . ." (merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they).

[Milburn Stone]

In any case, since "someone" is singular, the last sentence should be "He looked confused." (Or "She looked confused.")

[rur]

Thanks, @Milburn Stone. I guess I should have specified pronoun-antecedent agreement. 

[shapeshifter]

On 1/13/2019 at 1:39 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Perhaps one should reply with a cockney or Aussie accent: Blimey, mate, I 'ave a book you 'ave to read!
But I agree with @supposebly that the joke doesn't work when spoken,

20 hours ago, supposebly said:

The problem that people are having is that should've and should of sound (almost) identical, that's why people SPELL it wrong. There's nothing wrong with how they talk. So, that joke really doesn't work except in writing. 

which is why I was confused--especially since I'm trying to train myself to use singular they in conversation when appropriate.
So, in my opinion, the joke should be edited to:
Someone texted me "You should of read this book," so I texted back "I of a book you of to read," and then they sent me a poop emoji.

[Bastet]

4 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

So, in my opinion, the joke should be edited to:
Someone texted me "You should of read this book," so I texted back "I of a book you of to read," and then they sent me a poop emoji.

But it should still be "she" or "he" (instead of the singular they) sending that poop emoji, because the grammar offender's gender is not unknown to the joke teller; it's a specific "someone" being spoken of.  (Unless that someone's gender identity means they prefer the nonbinary pronoun in referring to them, but I suppose that takes us well into overthinking the joke territory.)

[Milburn Stone]

13 hours ago, Bastet said:

But it should still be "she" or "he" (instead of the singular they) sending that poop emoji, because the grammar offender's gender is not unknown to the joke teller; it's a specific "someone" being spoken of.  (Unless that someone's gender identity means they prefer the nonbinary pronoun in referring to them, but I suppose that takes us well into overthinking the joke territory.)

And being a grammar curmudgeon, I would insist that choosing "he" or "she" is mandatory even in the unlikely event that the joke teller doesn't know the offender's gender. Because "someone" is singular. 

If one feels compelled (for whatever reason, good or bad) to use "they," one must rewrite the joke from the top. Like so:

"When people say to me, 'You should of read this book,' I reply, 'I of a book you of to read.' They look confused."

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

And being a grammar curmudgeon,

I could argue you are just not curmudgeonly enough since:

23 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

". . . the development of singular they mirrors the development of the singular you from the plural you . . ." (merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they).

--but so that you can sleep tonight or maybe chuckle a bit, I offer you:
When people text me "You should of read this book," I text them back "I of a book you of to read," even though they then text back a question mark or a poop emoji.

But, seriously, it is best to teach correct grammar (or science or anything) by only giving correct examples. I have learned, for instance, that if I tell students, "don't click the back button because you will lose your search results" that they will hear "click the back button."

So, better:
Someone texted me "You should of read this book," so I texted back "I should've read the book?"

[fairffaxx]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

... But, seriously, it is best to teach correct grammar (or science or anything) by only giving correct examples. I have learned, for instance, that if I tell students, "don't click the back button because you will lose your search results" that they will hear "click the back button." ...

 

Any theories as to why the "don't" part of your instruction doesn't register with the students who do hear the "click" part? 

[rur]

20 minutes ago, fairffaxx said:

Any theories as to why the "don't" part of your instruction doesn't register with the students who do hear the "click" part? 

Psychologically speaking, it's generally taught that the brain doesn't process negative commands. It's been a few years since I taught psych, but I'll try to find something more substantive than my word and post it here. 

***

OK, I did a quick search and found nothing particularly reputable and I don't have any textbooks at home. But I would explain it as the brain can take action on a positive command, but a command to not take an action is harder to process. Nancy Reagan is famously associated with "Just say 'no' to drugs." That's an example of a positive command -- take the action of saying no. Conversely, some of you may remember when Bob Dole was running for President that his people had him try (a very short-lived) anti-drug campaign: "Just don't do it." That's negative --take no action.

(And yes, I'm aware that there were a multitude of ways in which it was negative for him. But I'm trying to keep the response appropriate for this forum, and these example of rhetoric were on TV.)

Edited January 20, 2019 by rur

[Terrafamilia]

One verbal tic that I am noticing more in real life and on the screen is someone ending a sentence with a "so" which then just trails off. While an aposiopesis may be a legitimate figure of speech the prevalence of this particular example is starting to drive me up the wall (especially since I have to guard against using it myself).

[Annber03]

Oh, god, I've been guilty of that one a few times myself :p. 

[Jacqs]

Of course language, pronunciation and grammar changes and evolves as time passes. One of the stupidest things in name nerd circles is that baby names have to be pre-1900 to be "legit". That is NOT how the English language works!

[topanga]

17 hours ago, Terrafamilia said:

One verbal tic that I am noticing more in real life and on the screen is someone ending a sentence with a "so" which then just trails off. While an aposiopesis may be a legitimate figure of speech the prevalence of this particular example is starting to drive me up the wall (especially since I have to guard against using it myself).

 

17 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Oh, god, I've been guilty of that one a few times myself :p. 

Same here, although l admit that I usually use "so..." as a passive-aggressive substitute for

• So WTF?
• So what the hell are you going to do about this situation you've created?   

and sometimes,

• So, I know you're not happy about that thing I just said I did, but I don't really regret it. This is not an apology.

[Milburn Stone]

22 hours ago, Terrafamilia said:

One verbal tic that I am noticing more in real life and on the screen is someone ending a sentence with a "so" which then just trails off. 

Funny, because the thing I notice more and more on all the news/talk shows is that respondents are beginning their answers with "so."

Host: What is the likely jail sentence for Flynn?

Reporter: So, this is what we know so far...

It's fairly new (like in the last year or so). And annoying, once you notice it. Because there's no reason on earth to begin an answer with "so"!

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

On 1/20/2019 at 4:28 PM, Terrafamilia said:

One verbal tic that I am noticing more in real life and on the screen is someone ending a sentence with a "so" which then just trails off. 

. . . It's fairly new (like in the last year or so). And annoying, once you notice it. Because there's no reason on earth to begin an answer with "so"!

Not new to me. Around 1999 when I was librarian in a Catholic high school, I recall principal Sr. Helen wearily observing that was the first time she heard a prayer begin with "so" as in: "So in the name of the Father . . . " It was in Sacramento, but I'm pretty sure I see and hear it all the time here in Chicagoland, as well as on TV.

[shapeshifter]

On 1/20/2019 at 2:47 PM, fairffaxx said:

On 1/20/2019 at 9:12 AM, shapeshifter said:

... But, seriously, it is best to teach correct grammar (or science or anything) by only giving correct examples. I have learned, for instance, that if I tell students, "don't click the back button because you will lose your search results" that they will hear "click the back button." ...

Any theories as to why the "don't" part of your instruction doesn't register with the students who do hear the "click" part? 

On 1/20/2019 at 2:58 PM, rur said:

Psychologically speaking, it's generally taught that the brain doesn't process negative commands. It's been a few years since I taught psych, but I'll try to find something more substantive than my word and post it here. . . .

In addition to cognitive explanations, in my instances it has to do with the constraints of the setting, which may or may not apply to other situations. My "don't click the back button example" occurred with 12-30 students clicking along with me on computers in a lab, many distracted or not keeping up for a multitude of reasons. Basically, in any setting, an instruction to do or not do something to get a particular result is only one syllable away from being the wrong instruction--which, now that I read this over, is really a cognitive issue.

[Anela]

22 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Funny, because the thing I notice more and more on all the news/talk shows is that respondents are beginning their answers with "so."

Host: What is the likely jail sentence for Flynn?

Reporter: So, this is what we know so far...

It's fairly new (like in the last year or so). And annoying, once you notice it. Because there's no reason on earth to begin an answer with "so"!

I do this a lot: beginning or ending with "So..."

You reminded me of the very first time I heard someone say, "Who would have thunk it." A little bit of me dies every time someone says that, but this came from a news anchor in Sacramento. It bothers me more, just because I would have thought they would know better.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Anela

[Milburn Stone]

20 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Not new to me. Around 1999 when I was librarian in a Catholic high school, I recall principal Sr. Helen wearily observing that was the first time she heard a prayer begin with "so" as in: "So in the name of the Father . . . " It was in Sacramento, but I'm pretty sure I see and hear it all the time here in Chicagoland, as well as on TV.

Oh, totally agree that it has infected everyday speech and isn't just on TV. That's why it's on the news/talk shows--because all these reporters are of the generation that now talks that way. Gah!

[Mittengirl]

It is better than “Yeah, no.”

[fairffaxx]

A substitute anchor (whose name I don't know) on MSNBC reported this afternoon that the IRS has recalled some furloughed workers to be sure that "tax returns are issued without delay". 

I hear this misuse of "tax returns" instead of "tax refunds" constantly, often from people who should know better.  But I've never heard anyone being corrected, so how will people (speakers or listeners) know which word is correct if the error isn't pointed out?  Eventually, "refunds" & "returns" will both mean "money the IRS sends to us" & we'll have to find a new name for that form we fill out & send to the IRS. 

[Moose135]

3 hours ago, Anela said:

I do this a lot: beginning or ending with "So..."

Me too.

[shapeshifter]

11 minutes ago, Moose135 said:

4 HOURS AGO, ANELA SAID:

I do this a lot: beginning or ending with "So..."

Me too.

Me three.
The extraneous introductory term that bothers me is "Now, . . . " especially when it's true meaning is contradicted as in: "Now, in those days . . . "

Edited January 22, 2019 by shapeshifter

[mojito]

Quote

It bothers me more, just because I would have thought they would know better.

"Who would've thunk it" is just a humorous expression. I mean, I doubt that when an educated person says "thunk", they think they're speaking correct English. Same with when someone uses the word "ain't".  Or "vi-ola" for "voila". I have no problem with people purposely using incorrect English in non-formal situations (including chit-chat between anchors). On the other hand, "He had ate it," and "then I seen him...." violations are not used for chuckles. 

[Jacqs]

Again i really hate the notion that baby names post--1900 are not "legit" to name nerds. It's not how English usage works. Similarly, Naive has diacritics in French but not in English and insisting the diacritics be used just makes one look like a pretentious intellectual arsehole.

[shapeshifter]

9 hours ago, Anela said:

It bothers me more, just because I would have thought they would know better.

I hate to ask, but should this be: "It bothers me more, just because I would have thought they would have known better," or do the verbs not have to be the same tense in this instance?
Also, I want to put a "that" before they like this:
"It bothers me more, just because I would have thought that they would have known better"
--which is something I often do, because it seems more clear, but is it correct? Or is it required? 

[meep.meep]

22 hours ago, Jacqs said:

Again i really hate the notion that baby names post--1900 are not "legit" to name nerds. It's not how English usage works. Similarly, Naive has diacritics in French but not in English and insisting the diacritics be used just makes one look like a pretentious intellectual arsehole.

Why would you care what “name nerds” think?  And what does that have to do with television?

[DangerousMinds]

I really miss the word "legitimate."

[Jacqs]

I just hate people who act as if their knowledge makes them better than the average working class or underclass person, who they insultingly call "bogan" or "chav".

It's my problem, I can deal with it. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Jacqs

[xaxat]

Me no type English well, but I think you grammar nerds with Netflix might really like the Vox explainer on the development of the exclamation point. 

(Apparently Netfilx doesn't allow direct links, so you will have to search for it.)

(Don't @ me if I screwed up my grammar!)

[shapeshifter]

Posted by my editor daughter's friend of 20 years: "This was my favorite graffiti. Not the large one, but the one correcting the grammar!"
I'm pretty sure the correction was written on the photograph of the graffiti and so is not actual graffiti itself, but I do like how polite the person making the correction was--or maybe it was more of a plea of desperation to some students.

Edited February 4, 2019 by shapeshifter

[Brookside]

From CNN "He is accused of being a UK citizen who entered the United States legally when he was a minor in July 2005, but he allegedly failed to leave under the terms of his nonimmigrant visa."

[Milburn Stone]

15 hours ago, Brookside said:

From CNN "He is accused of being a UK citizen who entered the United States legally when he was a minor in July 2005, but he allegedly failed to leave under the terms of his nonimmigrant visa."

I've read this over a few times and I don't see the error.

[legaleagle53]

16 hours ago, Brookside said:

From CNN "He is accused of being a UK citizen who entered the United States legally when he was a minor in July 2005, but he allegedly failed to leave under the terms of his nonimmigrant visa."

 

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

I've read this over a few times and I don't see the error.

Perhaps because "allegedly" is a trifle redundant.  There's also a parallelism issue.  The sentence would be better structured if it were "He is accused of being a UK citizen who entered the United States legally as a minor in 2005 and failing to leave under the terms of his non-immigrant visa."

For that matter, it could also be expressed a little more concisely: "Although he entered the United States legally in 2005, he is accused of failing to leave under the terms of his non-immigrant visa."

Edited February 5, 2019 by legaleagle53

[ABay]

I laughed at him being "accused of being a UK citizen."