We all know grammar Nazis. What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
-
Close gate? No it's all the way over there.
"Where wolf? There wolf! [points] There castle!"
-
This is just practically and technically wrong. You're lightyears off.
Of course there are incorrect grammars. They wouldn't be called grammar. While the tolerance for these errs is greater than the textbook, if you stray too far then the meaning you're trying to convey would be lost.
No, grammar isn't some kind of made up notion. Without grammars, it's just a bunch of words with no meaning.
I like to say, for instance, "pool-go" instead of "go to the pool" when I'm amongst friends, because I'm pretty sure I heard constructions like this in a novel once where aliens learned to talk English. But incorrect, or at the very least uncommon usage like that definitely straddles the line between comprehensible and unintelligible.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
"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"
-
Nothing, and the whole "grammar nazis" thing is rotten. There is never a reason to have any other reaction to being corrected about objective things than learning from the mistake. If someone shows you the spelling or grammar mistakes you made, read it and memorise the corrections. You're not losing anything by getting better at communication, you only gain. It doesn't take you five minutes longer to spell the words correctly and you don't make yourself look like an idiot, child with learning disabilities or someone who seriously doesn't care about the most basic and expected shit we do for others.
Language is an astounding tool and people who spot on it by not caring about spelling and grammar should be forced to take classes and taught to see how important it is.being corrected about objective things
Language is anything but objective and is constantly evolving based on how people use it.
-
Nothing, and the whole "grammar nazis" thing is rotten. There is never a reason to have any other reaction to being corrected about objective things than learning from the mistake. If someone shows you the spelling or grammar mistakes you made, read it and memorise the corrections. You're not losing anything by getting better at communication, you only gain. It doesn't take you five minutes longer to spell the words correctly and you don't make yourself look like an idiot, child with learning disabilities or someone who seriously doesn't care about the most basic and expected shit we do for others.
Language is an astounding tool and people who spot on it by not caring about spelling and grammar should be forced to take classes and taught to see how important it is.Listen bruv, if you can understand what I'm saying enough to be able to correct it with 100% confidence than anything that was omitted was superfluous anyway.
-
This is just practically and technically wrong. You're lightyears off.
Of course there are incorrect grammars. They wouldn't be called grammar. While the tolerance for these errs is greater than the textbook, if you stray too far then the meaning you're trying to convey would be lost.
No, grammar isn't some kind of made up notion. Without grammars, it's just a bunch of words with no meaning.
Grammar is literally just some made up notion
-
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.
