An article to put grammar nazis in their place

[JunkMonkey]

but there are times when using fewer sounds wrong even though its use is correct.

Ferrinstance us at once!

rather than agonise over which way I should be saying schedule etc., I'll use both randomly and no longer worry.

No agonising required. In the UK we have sheds. It's 'Shedule'.

 

[Danny McG]

My biggest grammar pet peeve is "alot". "We had alot of grits!" grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

(LOL - it must be a pet peeve of the auto-correct too! Had to type it 'wrong' 3 times before it took!)

Seriously, is 'alot' really not a word?

 

[Montero]

You really mean that Danny? Or is it too late at night and I'm not seeing that you are joking?

 

[Danny McG]

You really mean that Danny? Or is it too late at night and I'm not seeing that you are joking?

Obviously then it isn't a word.
I've seen it written so many times, indeed 'alot' of times, that I honestly was unsure.
I thought it was possibly a 'thing' from across the Atlantic and is now a recognised word.
I hasten to add that, until this reply, I've never used it.

 

[tinkerdan]

allot is a word but not alot.

If you are going to include the a with lot then you need to allot one more l to create a proper word. And that means something other than what you mean when you say a lot and that's saying a lot.

 

[Cathbad]

I hasten to add that, until this reply, I've never used it.

Don't use it; or I'll sic The Dragon on you!

 

[mosaix]

I don't consider myself a grammar Nazi; languages evolve and change over time. But there are some things that are common and just outright wrong. One that seems to be incredibly popular here on the Chrons is using "your" when the intention is "you're." Sorry but that one drives me up the wall for some reason. I guess it just seems lazy to me.

This is not a criticism of you, Vertigo, nor of what you are saying - I'm just making a point.

When people talk about language changing they always use words such as 'evolve' and never words such as 'improve' or 'deteriorate'. Isn't it possible that language can do either of these things?

 

[SilentRoamer]

When people talk about language changing they always use words such as 'evolve' and never words such as 'improve' or 'deteriorate'. Isn't it possible that language can do either of these things?

Far be it from me to speak for someone else but evolution is merely the mechanism, improvement or deterioration are the effects. Evolution doesn't always need to a be a positive or indeed desired effect.

 

[mosaix]

Far be it from me to speak for someone else but evolution is merely the mechanism, improvement or deterioration are the effects. Evolution doesn't always need to a be a positive or indeed desired effect.

I realise that SR.

My point was that we never discuss whether these 'evolutionary' changes are an improvement to the language or not, just that the language has 'evolved'.

 

[mosaix]

Interesting article on the BBC website yesterday:

Meet the 'Grammar Vigilante' of Bristol - BBC News

For years, it has been rumoured that somebody has been going out late at night, correcting bad punctuation on Bristol shop fronts.

The self-proclaimed "grammar vigilante" goes out undercover in the dead of night correcting street signs and shop fronts where the apostrophes are in the wrong place.

The program it refers to went out on BBC Radio 4 last night, but it's still available on BBC iPlayer.

 

[Montero]

Dictionaries get updated to reflect changing language - new words coming in, meaning sliding on other words.

I was raised to never use "got" - told it was superfluous that you could always write or speak a sentence without it and it was ugly.
As in "I got a" or "I've got a" should be "I have a"

 

[Danny McG]

Dictionaries get updated to reflect changing language - new words coming in, meaning sliding on other words.

I was raised to never use "got" - told it was superfluous that you could always write or speak a sentence without it and it was ugly.
As in "I got a" or "I've got a" should be "I have a"

It spoils a few song and film titles but

"She has a ticket to ride"
"You have mail"

 

[tinkerdan]

This is probably more a matter of how you are staking your verbs together.

Dictionaries get updated to reflect changing language - new words coming in, meaning sliding on other words.

I was raised to never use "got" - told it was superfluous that you could always write or speak a sentence without it and it was ugly.
As in "I got a" or "I've got a" should be "I have a"

She got into the car.
He got to try out a few of these new cars.
We got talking one evening.

Sure there are other words that could be put here, but I have to believe that it would be pettiness to do so.

 

[Cathbad]

Dictionaries get updated to reflect changing language

Grrrrr

Reminds me of dictionaries including "alternate spellings" - which I call MISspellings.

 

[Ursa major]

The program it refers to

In the UK, programs run on computers; what we watch on the TV are programmes....

Oh, the irony....

 

[Cathbad]

programmes....

Darn... I thought that was a snack...

 

[Danny McG]

Be careful how you pronounce

 

[Montero]

This is probably more a matter of how you are staking your verbs together.


She got into the car.
He got to try out a few of these new cars.
We got talking one evening.

Sure there are other words that could be put here, but I have to believe that it would be pettiness to do so.

Didn't say I listened to my parents.

I'd definitely use got in the first one, second one not sure (I know it is a quick example but for me, currently in hyper edit mode, phrase as a whole lacks smoothness)
Third one - no, wouldn't use that. Not sure what my alternative would be, but got talking, nope. Don't know why, just feels wrong.
Which is where style comes from to some extent - what one person feels (and I mean feels not thinks) is right, doesn't feel right to someone else.

 

[tinkerdan]

Further adventures of the Got- ty brothers.

I was giving further thought even to the superfluous nature and having run across an interesting example I have to share.

I hit this sentence while reading something I was working on
It's all I've got.
You could go with
It's all I have.
But I've recently read work by authors who have both a strange aversion to contractions and an attraction to misusing them.
They would have written.
It's all I've.
And that is clearly wrong to my mind.
So I'd easily give them
It's all I've got.
Just so my brain doesn't implode
-------------------------------------by the way---------------------------------------------------
Those earlier examples I gave came from some grammar lessons and were the good examples.

And I forgot to mention.
That is all I have.
And it's all I've got.

This whole thing has got me into trouble.
If I remember correctly, this is where I got off last time.
Just looking at my first two published novels.
Used got 100 times in book one.
Used got 87 times in book two.

 

[Danny McG]

Oh dear.......