Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Take that, Grammar Trolls

You just think you're so perfect!

by Anonymousreply 3610/16/2013

I agree with all of them except:

I could care less to mean "I couldn't care less".

That makes no sense and exists only in America.

by Anonymousreply 103/07/2013

It's okay to use...

Decimate to mean "kill or eliminate a large proportion of something"

like to mean "such as"

liable to to mean "likely to"

hopefully to mean "I hope that"

over to mean "more than"

since to mean "because"

while to mean "although"

momentarily to mean "in a moment"

the lion's share to mean "the majority"

verbal to mean "oral"

I could care less to mean "I couldn't care less"

I don't agree with this list at all, especially 'could care less'. That should be banned from speech as well.

by Anonymousreply 203/07/2013

The one I have a hard time with is #3 -- I thinking the [italic]that/which[/italic] distinction aids reading comprehension.

by Anonymousreply 303/07/2013

[quote]The one I have a hard time with is #3 -- I thinking the that/which distinction aids reading comprehension.

Agreed! These two aren't interchangeable, both have their time and place.

by Anonymousreply 403/07/2013

^ "I think"

by Anonymousreply 503/07/2013

And I am telling you, prepositions are things I often end a sentence with. And I may start them with a conjunction. We lost these battles long ago and, frankly, they've never bothered me.

I find it hard to not split an infinitive.

"Could care less," OTOH, is a complete Oh, Dear.

Also, I don't mind the interchangeability of "that" and "which." But reading "that" when "who" would be more descriptive -- i.e., when you're talking about a person -- makes my teeth curdle. It isn't wrong, technically, but I am a person who just can't stand "a person that..."

by Anonymousreply 603/07/2013

[quote]It isn't wrong, technically, but I am a person who just can't stand "a person that..."

Again agreed.

I also dislike the use of "who" when "whom" should be used.

by Anonymousreply 703/07/2013

And who v. whom is so easy, R1 R7.

by Anonymousreply 803/07/2013

[quote]I also dislike the use of "who" when "whom" should be used.

I (mildly) disagree.

I don't use whom much and feel slightly affected and old fashioned when I do. That may be because I'm English and people don't use whom much here. But, I'm not sure.

by Anonymousreply 903/07/2013

I are sure the author knows which he is talking about. And it behooves you not to take issue either. Ingrish are a forgiving style of talk jist like the peoples which speaks it.

by Anonymousreply 1003/07/2013

test

by Anonymousreply 1105/12/2013

[quote]I also dislike the use of "who" when "whom" should be used.

Me to. I see that alot.

by Anonymousreply 1205/12/2013

What do we care what some apologist for sloppy language has to say? What would we expect except the the person would excuse many examples of careless usage.

The point of knowing language is not only to speak in the manner best suited for the situation. It is to assist in understanding the people with whom one is speaking. I do not fault the reasonableness or commitment or passion of a person who uses careless or colloquial English. But a person who is slovenly in language tends to be a slovenly thinker and doer. The DL offers ample evidence of that truism.

Most of the examples excused here are examples of imprecision and lack of thoughtfulness. Sure, I won't point them out to a speaker, which is irrelevant and impolite. But I shall know immediately the type of person with whom I am dealing. It's not a matter of "excuse." It's a matter of accepting the self-revelation offered.

by Anonymousreply 1305/12/2013

The purpose of language is communication. It doesn't matter what rules are followed if a speaker or writer is understood. Rules are necessary, but at the same time, the best usage is that which is understood, regardless of whether or not it follows the rules. R13 has a broomstick up her ass.

by Anonymousreply 1405/12/2013

[quote]The purpose of language is communication. It doesn't matter what rules are followed if a speaker or writer is understood.

When people use horrible grammar, I can generally understand them. But what they are also communicating to me is profound ignorance, a poor education, a lack of intelligence, and an aversion to reading.

More to the point, the trouble is not that they're following other rules, but that they're following no rules whatsoever. That's not language, that's babbling.

by Anonymousreply 1505/12/2013

Languages are living entities. The rules and the word meanings change over time. Nevertheless, there is a huge difference between a great (or any knowledgeable) writer breaking a grammatical rule for a specific effect and an ignorant writer breaking of a rule because he/she does not know there [italic]are[/italic] rules.

by Anonymousreply 1605/12/2013

I've never seen an "Oh, dear" for any of the rules listed in the linked article.

DL grammar trolls seem to be, thankfully and appropriately, concerned with highlighting outright ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 1705/12/2013

Actually, I see "Oh, dear" used mostly when the other person makes a spelling error or uses the wrong word.

The grammar errors that attract "Oh, dear" are usually "its" versus "it's" or "your" versus "you're"....

by Anonymousreply 1805/12/2013

I never "oh, dear" obvious typos.

by Anonymousreply 1905/12/2013

Unfortunately, people are going to lose jobs because they incorporated these mistakes into their cover letters. One really can't go waving the article under the nose of a potential employer to prove that such usage is acceptable.

by Anonymousreply 2005/12/2013

As with manners, the primary purpose of grammar is to find fault with others.

by Anonymousreply 2205/12/2013

"Language evolves" often means that the person making the statement thinks their mistakes make more sense than the correct way. Take that to it's extreme, and everyone will speak their own dialect.

Polari, patois etc I can understand and clearly have function and value. Shitty grammar and spelling is shitty grammar and spelling.

by Anonymousreply 2305/12/2013

[quote]Shitty grammar and spelling is shitty grammar and spelling.

Oh, dear? Or okay?

by Anonymousreply 2405/25/2013

What makes you think we didn't already know all that?

by Anonymousreply 2505/26/2013

Could you please tell me which is grammatically correct? comments' pages or comments pages - do I need an apostrophe if there is more than one comment and several pages? Thank you very much

by Anonymousreply 2610/13/2013

R26, the pages don't belong to the comments -- rather, the pages are devoted to, or full of, comments.

Since the comments do not possess the pages, no apostrophe after "comments" is required.

So "comments pages" is correct -- "comments" is merely an adjective that describes the pages, like "blue" or "twenty".

by Anonymousreply 2710/13/2013

The pig doesn't even mention the "who/that" controversy.

by Anonymousreply 2810/13/2013

Thank you so very much R27, you are beautiful and brilliant! Are you single by any chance ;)lol - only joking. Thanks again for your detailed explanation.

by Anonymousreply 2910/15/2013

You think YOUR so perfect.

by Anonymousreply 3010/15/2013

Surely others have noticed the recent phenomenon of the misuse of "myself" when me or I should be used? I've seen this even among otherwise educated individuals. Can someone explain why this seems so prevalent now?

by Anonymousreply 3110/15/2013

People are uncertain whether to use "I" or "me" so they use "myself" as a dodge.

by Anonymousreply 3210/15/2013

Refeshing.

What do you bitches think about "It's me." in response to "who is it?'

Yes, it is technically incorrect, but it sounds more natural than "It's I." That, to me is the test of when a change has occurred. The "correct" expression sounds stilted.

by Anonymousreply 3310/15/2013

A simple "c'est moi!" would take care of it -- and sound so natural and unaffected.

by Anonymousreply 3410/15/2013

The link is bullshit. You don't make up youw own rules because you don't like the existing ones.

by Anonymousreply 3510/15/2013

[quote]The link is bullshit. You don't make up youw own rules because you don't like the existing ones.

Do you suppose these rules were handed down by God?

These are not private rules. They are accurate descriptions of how educated people speak and write. The rules, as the author explains, were always wrong or are no longer true.

Thou needs't think more upon thine argument.

by Anonymousreply 3610/16/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.