We all know grammar Nazis. What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
who/whom.
Maybe it's because that English is not my first language but I always find it confusing.
-
I don't know if shouldn't've is grammatically correct but I hear it a lot so it seems like fair play. Same for other contractions that I never see in text, possibly because they're wrong. Because've. He'd've.
Also like I'ma which can't possibly be ok, but "I am going to" is for suckers.
Because have? When and how has that ever been used?
-
Grammar is literally just some made up notion
You literally wouldn't be able to write this without it...
I mean, what would be the altenative? Throw a bunch of relevant words in random order and hope that someone would understand?
Notion is literally just some made up grammar
I bet this one would convey anything but what you'd mean originally.
-
Because have? When and how has that ever been used?
Hah! I mightn't've thought enough about that example, probably because of a lack of sleep.
-
I will accept "would ve" before "would of"
Agreed. I enjoy that I confused "because of" with "because have" in my own example tho
-
Putting question marks or exclamation points after "quotation marks"! I've never understood the point of putting the punctuation inside the quotation unless it's part of the quotation itself.
For me it depends on if you are quoting someone (punctuation inside quote) or just using a phrase like “woke” (punctuation outside).
-
The right to gleefully split infinitives.
Adverbs as a rule can go anywhere in a sentence, so split away, I say!
-
who/whom.
Maybe it's because that English is not my first language but I always find it confusing.
To whom/for whom is supposed to be the rule for when to use whom, but in American English it sounds way too formal.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
I’m fine with “free reign” and “beckon call” because the meaning is retained and language evolves.
-
I’m fine with “free reign” and “beckon call” because the meaning is retained and language evolves.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I feel like "free reign" means the same thing as "free rein" anyway. As in you're not shackled in your rule; a despot. "He has free reign over his domain."
-
To whom/for whom is supposed to be the rule for when to use whom, but in American English it sounds way too formal.
Whomst is a fun one.
-
Putting question marks or exclamation points after "quotation marks"! I've never understood the point of putting the punctuation inside the quotation unless it's part of the quotation itself.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Quote is full sentence: inside. Quote is part of sentence or word: outside.
Eg:
“Oh no!” he gasped.
And
Apparently she's “done with me”!
Love, an editor.
-
who/whom.
Maybe it's because that English is not my first language but I always find it confusing.
There's a pretty trivial rule for getting this right. Phrase your sentence using who/whom as a question. Respond with he/him. If your response contains a "he", your initial statement should be "who"; if it contains a "him" then you're looking at a "whom" use.
- ex: "To who/whom should the gold be given?" -> "To him" -> "whom"
- ex: "Who/whom wants the gold?" -> "He wants the gold" -> "who"
- ex: "Who/whom did you see at the party?" -> "I saw him" -> "whom"
- ex: "The man who/whom called earlier is here" -> "Who/whom called?" -> "he called" -> "who"
-
You literally wouldn't be able to write this without it...
I mean, what would be the altenative? Throw a bunch of relevant words in random order and hope that someone would understand?
Notion is literally just some made up grammar
I bet this one would convey anything but what you'd mean originally.
wrote last edited by [email protected]What I wrote is grammatically incorrect, there is no full stop. You understood what I meant with no ambiguity despite an incorrect use of grammar. I literally did write that without adhering to grammatical rules and it didn't impede either of our abilities to communicate.
-
It is perfectly cromulent to use "less" in place of "fewer".
Some would say it's fewer correct, however.
-
What I wrote is grammatically incorrect, there is no full stop. You understood what I meant with no ambiguity despite an incorrect use of grammar. I literally did write that without adhering to grammatical rules and it didn't impede either of our abilities to communicate.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Of course it is correct! Let me break it down for you.
Grammar is literally just some made up notion
Subject: Grammar
Verb: Be -> Is
Adverb: Literally, Just
Pronoun: Some
Adjective: Made-up
Object: Notion
The lack of full stop is indeed an error. But the structure of your sentence is still valid.
-
The one thing I will insist on is the use of is/are. It's pretty simple, if referring to a countable set, use "are". E.g. there are four turtles in my sewer. You would not say "there are too much shit on this webpage", because that shit is uncountable.
Some things work differently between dialects of English. For example "the band is" (it is) vs "the band are" (they are).
-
I really like to write 'gonna.'
I'm never gonna give it up.
-
Have to / need to - At some point in my 20s it was pointed out to me that "need to" is the correct phrase and that "have to" isn't correct. But actually "have to" is used in both English and Spanish "tengo que" which is "have to" or technically "have that". Grammatically, if "have" is a state of being then "have to" is like a state of being with a direction or target implied.
While I might use them interchangeably, as a non-native I would think "need to" is supposed to mean that the situation came out of necessity, such as feeling the need to pee or resorting to selling your car because of an empty wallet, while "have to" is more like the result of some rules or discipline, such as showing up to work in time - but I understand that the line between the two can be rather blurry.
As for my thing: there are a few shortened words in my language (similarly to the English "hubby", "preggo", etc.) that got shortened according to pronunciation, and not the original (longer) word, having a different spelling at the start (as if "circle" got shortened to "circ", but spelled as "cirk"). It feels like a kid came up with the spelling, and now it's the official form. It's bugging my inner spelling nazi every time I see it.
-
who/whom.
Maybe it's because that English is not my first language but I always find it confusing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]if you are familiar with object vs subject in grammar you already know the rule,
whois used when it's the subject,whomwhen the object:Who is that?
That's who ate my ice cream.
Whom did you give ice cream to?
The ice cream went to the one whom I saw first.
This rule is the same as knowing when to use
sheorhevs when to useherorhim, it's no different.However, most people don't use
whomcorrectly and it can just be avoided entirely, most people will just usewhoas the object anyway and it will sound more natural to them:Who did you give ice cream to?
The ice cream went to the one who I saw first.
Using
whomin these cases can make you sound formal or fancy, and draws attention.
