We all know grammar Nazis. What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
-
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.
I see what you did there.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
wrote last edited by [email protected]someone corrected me on spelling "at least" "atleast"
like... alright? (wink wink nudge nudge)anyways I was in a bad mood and wrote a passive aggressive message I ended up not sending
Words condense over time, it's not a crime to not type a space.
do you say "goodbye" or "God be with ye"? what about "gossip" or "farewell"?
What about a purpose misspelling being turned to one of the most common words in conversation? "all correct" -> "oll korect" -> "ok"
-
Mooses and gooses
Moos and goos
-
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.
Nothing about which to be ashamed.
There's a funny bit in "the last man on earth" where Kristen Schaal's character always corrects people when they end their sentences with a preposition. It shows how much more ridiculous her correction sounds.
... Not a great show, but that bit was pretty funny.
-
Mooses and gooses
I really like when non-native speakers say persons.
-
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.
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?
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
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.
-
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.
I think double contractions are cool. Maybe unnecessary, but cool and reflect real-world speech.
If I may also propose some triple contraction abominations: I'dn't've (I would not have), he'dn't've (he would not have), she'dn't've (she would not have), etc.
-
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 Iâll 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 couldnât convey our meaning.
The other is saying that grammar, I think perhaps âproper grammarâ is made up by humans, and so doesnât 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 Iâll 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 Iâm a call you a wolf in sheepâs 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.
