We all know grammar Nazis. What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
Using "they" as singular. Also, referring to animals besides humans as "he," "she," or "they" instead of "it."
I usually am a grammar nazi, but these are things I do very intentionally.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
*defense
-
Ending a sentence with a preposition has been standard in English for longer than the language has existed, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
This is a thing up with which I will not put.
-
Nobody actually knows how to use "it begs the question" anyway. Even the ones who think they do.
… fine I’ll do it.
That begs the question, how is it used properly?
-
How do you feel when there's a contraction? Would you be okay with There's four turtles in my sewer or would you insist on There're four turtles in my sewer?
I only insist on this point of grammar for myself and to my kid, who is still young enough to need instruction on grammar.
As a matter of style, I don't prefer there're in written form, but it's fine spoken. But yes, I do stand on the point even with contractions.
-
Mooses and gooses
Moosepodes and goosepodes
-
Yeah almost like in different contexts different grammar is appropriate exactly like the original comment said you evolutionary col-de-sac
wrote last edited by [email protected]I think you guys are fighting about different things; you need to have a unified definition of grammar.
One is saying that without some rules on how the words relate to one another we couldn’t convey our meaning.
The other is saying that grammar, I think perhaps “proper grammar” is made up by humans, and so doesn’t have any intrinsic worth compared with something else made up by humans.
Both are correct, the important thing is that whichever grammar we collectively decide on. Intrinsically worthless or not, we need to have some unified definition, codified or not, so that we have the necessary degree of specificity for a given situation to transfer information between parties.
-
Even if someone says "irregardless" or "I could care less", I don't say anything because I still understand what they mean.
I've always argued for the side of "if your point comes across and is understood as intended, your grammar or lack thereof, does not matter in the slightest"
-
"And" isn't necessary when listing.
Example: "cats, dogs and mice"
Vs "cats, dogs, mice"
Haven't heard an argument beyond "it's just convention" and I'm lazy enough to not bother with three letters and one syllable.
I think it also can be a little clearer in some situations where the word "and" is included in the list.
Example: "I like jazz, rock and roll and classical"
Vs: "I like jazz, rock and roll, classical"
wrote last edited by [email protected]For your example, to make the list clearer in writing I would usually do one of the two.
I like Jazz, Rock and Roll, and Classical.
Or
I like Jazz, Rock & Roll and Classical.
(Or the other way around if a list item includes "and" specifically)
I often write in a way that flows better when talking, so I usually try to find ways like the above to make that kind of flow look more understandable in writing too. I don't think your and-less version flows well, in my way of speaking at least. But I also wouldn't tell you to stop doing that, because I can understand it, and that matters most in reality.
-
… fine I’ll do it.
That begs the question, how is it used properly?
Haha.
If you're interested. -
By some standards, the Oxford comma is still incorrect grammar. I'll die on the hill that it has utility, and I'm glad it's becoming more of a commonly accepted convention.
Alright, which standards? Show your work or else I’m a call you a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
-
To anyone who has a problem with singular they:
Roses are red, violets aren't blue
Singular they is older than singular youAnyone who has a problem with singular they can eat my non-binary ass.
-
Alright, which standards? Show your work or else I’m a call you a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Can check style guides for publications and academic institutions in the UK, Australia, and the like. BBC, ABC, etc. Back in the day it was simply considered wrong, now most non-US publications and academic institutions simply advise not using it unless it helps avoid ambiguity. E.g. the excerpt below from the ABC style guide:
Oxford comma, serial comma
A comma placed before the last item in a list: she ate grapes, toast, and cheese. Avoid unless it aids the reader or prevents ambiguity.
American style guides are generally more in favor of the Oxford comma. APA mandates it, MLA says do whatever makes sense, and Chicago says pick one and stick to it.
-
Moosepodes and goosepodes
Goosepodes nuts
-
Whomst is a fun one.
Whomst'd've
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Putting contracted words in the wrong places. Like ending a sentence with "you're".
Using "less" instead of "fewer".
Not getting spellings 100% accurate all the time.
Using the wrong version of 'your' or 'their'.
