Grammar mistakes I can't stand.

1) People who confuse "you're" and "your". Geez.

2) People who use the word "ironic" in place of words like "interesting" and "coincidence". Man, is that irritating.

I guess I just I felt like bitching about something that happens much more than it should.

Also when people confuse "their", "there", and "they're" it's very annoying.

When people say "could care less" when what they really mean is "couldn't care less".

The thing that drives me nuts most, though, is the misuse of apostrophes. I see this all the dang time! With very few exceptions, you do NOT use apostrophes in plurals, dammit! :banghead:

:banghead:

...until I found out that it was supposed to be uttered in a snarky tone. The implied next line is "but not much."

That is something up with which I will not put.

:D

I'm a good sport. :)

just having a bit of fun! :7

"Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

Yes, I did start using them in college; but I'll stop. Really I will. ;)

his proposed rule against semicolons is like the rule against the passive voice: it's a useful exercise but should not be followed slavishly.

At the risk of sounding like a stuck-up college guy, I would argue that semicolons have their place.

The issue is whether two independent clauses should ever be separated by a semicolon rather than a period. I say yes. The semicolon indicates that the two clauses are more closely related to each other than either of them is to an adjacent sentence. Appropriate use of a semicolon can help clarify the meaning of a paragraph.

Nice try. ;-)

make the right decision when it comes to words such as "you're", "your" and "their", "they're" but I always have a hard time figuring out when it's correct to use "then" or "than".

"Alaska is bigger than Rhode Island"
"I'd rather walk a mile than smoke a Camel"

Hope this helps! If it does, then I'll be happy!

It really does help! :hi:

:P

freerice.com - English Grammar

That site is addictive.

:D

Yes, it is. :D

"lay" for "lie";

plural for singular, e.g., "data", "criteria", "bacteria", respectively, for "datum", "criterion", "bacterium";

"should of" for "should have";

use of "e.g." for "i.e.", and vice versa;

glaring redundancies, like "ATM machine", "IRA account", "the hoi polloi", "the El Camino", "PIN number";

subtle redundancies, like "cold temperature";

"I'm like" for "I said";

"like" for "as" or "as if".

the El Camino, even though it is a redundancy, El Camino is trademark, so technically you're referring to the trademark name. It does seem clunky though.

If you're talking about a specific El Camino, it would be incorrect to not say "El Camino" instead of "the El Camino." Yes "el" means "the," but "el" isn't an article in English, so it makes no sense to drop the "the" just because of a redundancy: "El Camino was stopped at the light when another driver ran into El Camino from behind" is incorrect, for instance. (Also, if "the El Camino" is a redundancy, then "an El Camino" is a contradiction.

The same is true with the oft-protested "with au jus." Yes, in French "au jus" means with the juice, but "au" isn't a preposition in English, so there's nothing wrong with adding a preposition. If you're talking about a specific preparation of beef (roast beef au jus) then it isn't necessary, because in that case you can assume the foreign phrase is translated directly (as is also the case with Chili con carne). But if you're talking about au jus as a separate sauce, served on the side in its own container, as some restaurants do with French dip or Italian Beef sandwiches, then it's okay to speak of a Roast Beef sandwich with au jus.

because "au" is a contraction of the preposition "a" and the article "le".

The phrase "au jus" is similar to the phrase "a la mode". The only syntactical difference is that "jus" is masculine, whereas "mode" is feminine.
Would you ever say "apple pie with a la mode on the side"? :rofl:

Their syntactic similarity notwithstanding.

If someone brought you pie, it wouldn't make much sense to say: "Do you have any a la mode to go with my pie?" That's because "apple pie a la mode" is a style of presentation. "A la mode" isn't a thing in itself.

It's not the always same with au jus, because "au jus" can be a thing in itself:


If someone brought you a roast beef sandwich, it would make perfect sense to say: "Do you have any au jus?" And if they did, and they brought it to you, then you would have au jus with your roast beef sandwich.

So "a la mode" and "au jus" aren't really the same thing.

I had an argument with my daughter on this one. She wrote "Please RSVP" on an invitation, even though she knows it's redundant.

Is it impolite to write "RSVP" without an additional "please" in English? Would anyone be offended by this?

I don't think it's impolite to just write "RSVP" (and I wouldn't be offended, though I can't speak for everyone) -- stil, though, it might be better to soften it with a time frame: RSVP by _________.

Basically RSVP functions as a verb itself, which is why people say things like "I just remembered I've got to RSVP on that wedding invitation." Of course that doesn't make sense if you spell out and translate the acronym, but when we import words, phrases, or acronyms from foreign languages it's only natural to bend them to fit the adopting language.

So even though strictly translated RSVP means Please Respond, it also means something slightly distinct from that in English. So personally I wouldn't be put off by either the apparent redundancy of "Please RSVP," but I also wouldn't have a problem with the other.

:)

My friend came up with a great name for a restaurant called "In the House of Chez Casa"

Your point is well taken concerning the brand name (of which I was unaware).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I like it when people order a sandwich "with au jus sauce" - that's like saying "with with juice sauce" ...

But I understand the predicament. There is no English equivalent to "jus".

If a customer orders a "sandwich with juice", the conversation might go something like this:

"What kind of juice do you want with your sandwich?"

"You know, the stuff that seeps out of the meat while it's being cooked."

"We have orange juice, tomato juice, grapefruit juice, ... ."

for some reason it's a typo I make sometimes. I think it's because I type so fast. I usually catch it, but sometimes it's slipped by, and man, ifI don't catch it till after an editing time has gone by... argh! So, I just have to give others the benefit of the doubt, too. If anyone sees me goof that up, it's a typo, I swear!

makes me insane in the membrane.

I would'nt have did it that way.


:D
:shudder:

hearing "if he was" drives me up the wall!

1. Positions you disagree with or are poorly argued are not straw men.

2. Whenever someone insults you or insults your position it is not an ad hominem

3. Someone pointing out logical flaws in your argument is not Reducio ad adsurdum.

4. Just because you don't like what a person is saying it doesn't mean it's a non sequitur.

:eyes:

:rofl:

a thing is either unique

or it ain't.

Fucking pinheads......
mark

But what really cheeses my grater is kith and kin. I mean, duh, do you have any kith who ain't kin? I don't think so.


(In case you're wondering, yes, I am making fun of you)

 

In law they are different. Hence, 'you pick your kith but not your kin'.

:)

Or so I've been told by the speling police. ;)

I know the difference, but if I go too fast and don't proofread you may see a mistake like that in one of my posts. I don't know, maybe it's some kind of dyslexia.

"Whoever" is correct. "Whomever" is wrong.

I see a lot of people using "whomever," probably because they think it's the object of the preposition, "to."

However, the object of the preposition is not the single word, "whomever." The object of the preposition is the ENTIRE CLAUSE, "whoever gave me the hearts."

Think of this this way:

Thank you to (Joan).
Thank you to (Fred).
Thank you to (whoever gave me the hearts).

"Whoever" is the SUBJECT of the clause and thus must take the nominative case.


By contrast, if you were writing "I send hearts to whomever I admire," you would use the objective case, "whomever." In this sentence, the object of the preposition is again an entire clause: "whomever I admire." However, "I" is the subject of the clause, "admire" is the verb, and "whomever" is the object, requiring the objective case.

Ha ha, just kidding. I never seriously use passive voice.

I believe the word is perceived, snicker snicker. I hate it when people say "I feel badly" about something. The correct word is "bad." Saying "I feel badly" is like saying "I am badly."
Please forgive me. My mother was an English teacher.

:o
Feeling badly? Are your fingertips numb? ;)

:evilgrin:

And, as my first post indicates, I do feel bad about people who say "I feel badly." Unless, of course, their fingertips are numb.

This is just one of those 3.7 million exceptions found in the English language.

"Badly" is always an adverb. It ends with an ly. I don't care how many times you hear people misuse it, Correct usage dictates that you should not use it as a adjective. And adverbs modify transitive, ie., active verbs. He sang slowly, not he sang slow. He sang badly is correct, if you are describing someone off key and out of rhythm.

"Bad" is always an adjective. Adjectives modify nouns as a rule and state of being verbs...ie. INtransitive verbs. Transitive verbs are action verbs, they can take a direct object, ie., he sang the SONG, (transitive, the object is song)
and he sang it badly.(adverb modifies transitive verb.)

Intransitive verbs are generally thought of as "state of being" verbs. Feel is a good example. I feel ill, I feel sick, I feel happy, I feel sad. You could as easily say I am ill, sick, happy, sad.

Feel may also be used as a transitive verb. "I feel her forhead (transitive) and it feels hot (intransitive.)

It is correct to say "I feel badly" only if you felt her forehead and it felt cool to you (not cooly, by the way) but she actually had a 105 degree fever.
Then you certainly did feel badly.

This is a persnickity grammar point and at least half a brazillion people a day say "I feel badly" anyway.
That doesn't make it correct. If all those people misusing it have suddenly made it ok, they haven't informed the grammar police.
It just makes it my pet grammar peeve....which is what this thread is supposed to be about, right?

:applause:

The use of "I feel badly" is not a modern corruption of the adverb, so much as a residual usage of an adjective that is no longer used in as many different situations as it once was. But badly (like poorly) was long an adjective meaning ill or unhealthy, and people used to use it with verbs other than feel, such as "I am badly" or "he has taken badly" (meaning he has taken ill), "you appear badly" (meaning not that you are half visible, but that you look ill); they also used badly in constructions where it was more clearly an adjective, such as "in a badly way."

This history of the word is apparent in the tinge of quaintness in phrases such as "thinking badly" of someone or "speaking badly" of someone (meaning not a failure to enunciate, but rather "speaking ill").


There are plenty of adjectives that end in -ly. Ghostly, holy, monthly, weekly, princely, scholarly, goodly, friendly, kindly, and so on.

Speaking well, communicating clearly, and expressing yourself efficiently are important mental disciplines, but they are not a valid reasons to oppose the evolution of a living language. Too many people get the idea that that more rules there are the more proper the language is. That's just silly, and never you mind that I just wrote "more proper."

X3 :evilgrin:

Languages change.

:rofl:

-'s is merely an orthographic convention that helps distinguish the possessive from the plural in writing.

I guess it makes things easier when you're surrounded by "Nazi's."

:rofl:

I NEVER use it, EVER, unless I'm intentionally trying to sound like a pretentious twit.

And, no, I'm not a pretentious twit.

Blanket pronunciations on what constitutes proper language are annoying. Blanket pronunciations without any rational basis are even more so.

It may be true where you happen to live, but, in my experience, most people who have mastered proper grammar will tend to use it.

By my observation, people interchange "who" and "whom" not because they have decided that speech can/should be more informal, but because they don't automatically KNOW which is correct. They are the same people who have to stop and think about the rule when they are trying to write a formal or professional letter.

It is a strange sort of reverse pretentiousness that insults someone for using a grammatically correct construction.

hmm. That doesn't sound quite right, does it?

get what they meant.

What I hate: "I could care less." People, it's "I COULDN'T care less."

"It's" is only a contraction of it is.

And it annoys the piss out of me when people misuse it.

I get cornfused about that......:hippie:

it is its possession.

Page 1 of Strunk and White.

A secretary told me that ages ago and I never forgot.

...even as I type this. I believe the headline is Two and a Half Men Losing It's Star? x(

Jeeze Louise, BSer, human beings make typos. If you catch one, it's cool to politely point it out to the poster, but it's not like the principal of Homo Sapiens High School came along and appointed you the official Internet Editor of Planet Earth!

That reminds me of a short Onion article about William Safire getting bent out of shape for Burger King marketing "Whopper Jr's" which he said should be correctly marketed as "Whoppers Jr."

:rofl:

I just thought it was funny.

though your menu says burrito supremes."

Totally great piece!

It totally stuck with me. lol

.
... but woke up very hungover next to her Grammar.
.
.
In all these years... I've never quite worked up enough nerve to ask.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Although I SWEAR that was an eye-twinkle whenever Grammar
looked at me.
.

.

that annoys me no end.

really. It seems that even people who should know better do it.

I feel like the Internet is dumbing people down to the point where they don't know correct spelling/grammar anymore.

Especially on business signs. :mad: :banghead:

And the "your"/"you're" thing, too.

means "who's" and vice versa. I have seen trained writers mis-use these terms, and it is always shocking.

Who's = Who is
Whose = One who possesses something

His chart about 10 words you need to stop misspelling is both enlightening and hilarious:

Find it here: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling

(He also has one on apostrophe abuse: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe)


I think if teachers used something like this, students might remember some of it. Or not. Whatever.

:)

Saying it is bad enough, but I seen people here actually typing it... :evilgrin:

It's as if they enjoy butchering the language. Where were these people when their English class studied conjugation of verbs and subject/verb agreement?

Take my 'pitcher' with the camera

The Ree-lit-tor is here to show the house.

Irregardless.

Come on, People! A Pitcher is either standing on a mound grinding out a 92 MPR curveball, or else standing on the table and you grab it for a beverage refill. A picture is an image. Learn it. Use it properly.

Reelitor: no excuse. I've even heard folks who do it for a living tell me they're reelitors and sell reelity. Get another job.

Irregardless is like I could care less. Just states exactly the opposite and isn't even a real expression. Don't say it if you can't figure it out, and no one can infer the true meaning.

Okay, done now. Feel waaay better after the rant and deliberately dropping my first-person-subject-case pronouns in the last two sentences!

I want to bang my head against a wall every time I see something like "Apple's $0.30/lb." Or, "Book's for sale." This mistake is commonplace at my local grocery stores, among other places. I am sorely tempted to start carrying my red sharpie with me to cross out those apostrophes.

The "blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks. :hi:

:hi:

Also people who use I all the time when me is the correct term.

I think it was a prize for winning the 7th-Grade, All-School Spelling Bee. (No pictures or autographs...please! I'm a busy person.)

In reflecting on my school years, I think the lessons that stuck with me most were those of grammar and punctuation. No idea why. Must be the way my brain rolls.

Geometry? Not so much. So, please do not ask me about a hypotenuse. I still think of it as an animal hybrid. And I like it that way.

How about "I would like to thank you....." implies that you have a reason NOT to thank someone....

But one that really bugs me that hasn't been mentioned yet is wrong use of subject and object pronouns-- especially with plural subjects/objects. For example, "Me and him went to the movies" always drives me up the wall. Would people say "Me went to the movies" or "Him went to the movies"? So why do they switch to object pronouns when the subject is plural?

Or the reverse-- "The present is for my wife and I". Would someone say "The present is for I"? No. So why do they use a subject pronoun when the object is plural?

And if you really want to scratch the proverbial fingernails on the chalkboard with me, say something like "Him and her gave she and I a present" :argh:

And so in spoken English subject pronouns shift to the Oblique forms when preceding a conjunction. the reverse is a hypercorrection.

or in any of the writing books I have read. Whether it's a singular subject or a plural subject linked by a conjunction, the pronoun(s) should be a subject pronoun(s).

"Who's going? Me is."

Same with double negatives. Double negatives are a normal part of the spoken language, as is usual in Western European languages (Spanish uses them all the time), but for some reason in the 1700s the Grammar Nazis didn't like them because they weren't "logical", despite the fact that they are a part of EVERY Western European language. The dislike of "ain't" was nothing but elitist nonsense that lead to ungrammatical absurdities like "aren't I".

:puke:

Its an example of the tendency to merge preterit and past participle forms in irregular verbs.

:puke:

We'd be driving somewhere, he'd make a turn, then immediately say, "I should have went the other way." And I'd yell, "Should have GONE, Dad!" Sometimes he did it on purpose, just to bug me. LOL

"Myriad" means "ten thousand" and should be used the same way. It's "there were myriad stars." not "there were a myriad of stars."

I'm sure it only bugs me because it's strange and stuck in my head.

They are going to work different. GAK!!!

And "rein" and "Reign". "rein in" as in reins controlling a horse, NOT "reign in".

Reigning is what kings and queens do.

People who don't know about past perfect verbs. They just add -ed and keep going.

I have seen "grinded" because they didn't know about "ground".

And they don't know about helper verbs like "have". "have went" just kills me.

Apostrophe abuse is bad. Possessive and plural possessives get a lot of folks.

"Ladie's night" Lord, can I go now???

"Texas Woman's University" <--- proper
"Texas Womans' University" <--wrong
"Texas Women's University" <--wrong
"Texas Womens' University" <--wrong

:hi:

:hide:

Is it just me, or does it seem like more and more people are using "literally" when they actually mean "figuratively"?

I had a colleague say to me last week that she was "literally looking for a needle in a haystack" but she was actually looking for a file in a poorly organized series of filing cabinets. I've noticed this on TV and on the interwebs, too - people using "literally" to sort of emphasize what they're saying. I know my colleague really really felt that her search was as futile as searching for a needle in a haystack, but "literally" is still entirely incorrect in that context.

And one that is a lot older (and has a more respectable pedigree) than most people realize. I think the real problem with it is that that use is a bit too shopworn to actually serve the purpose of an intensifier, so it winds up just being filler like "very" often does.

Interesting article about this (and other similar words that have come to mean the opposite of their original meaning) here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/

:D

Interesting article - thanks for posting that!

With no punctuation, or capitalization. I really hate that. I can stand LOL, but that's because its an acronym for real words. But lazy typing really annoys me, I can never understand what they're saying! And that stinks because most of my friends that I communicate mostly through email type like that.

I spent a week reacting to their clever (and "clever") comments by saying "loll" or "roffel" before any of them caught no to what I was doing. Once they figured it out, the immediate verdict in that class was for two kids across the room from each other to say in unison, "That's so gay!"

*sniff, sniff*

justthoughyaoughttoknow

:P

My pet peeve? People who misuse the word "literally." I literally want to kill them, as in I will go to a gun shop, buy a gun, and shoot anyone who uses the word "literally" in an improper context.

(Okay, not really, but I do mean that figuratively. :) )

Not me, of course. And isn't that ironic?

:P

Just to see how many forehead veins I can pop. :evilgrin:

had to do with speeling bad on porpoise...

:)

"meet up with" "join up with"

What's wrong with meet or join?

I hear this on television all the time, read it in books, and a good friend, a wonderful writer, said it last week.

I spent several years turning social workerese into English. It was easy to change limitate into limit, but had a hard time figuring out what to do with organizationalization.

edited for spelling