We all know grammar Nazis. What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
-
I like to put apostrophes where they do'nt belong.
i like to omit them when i shouldnt
(i use gesture typing and used to be so aggressively into coming off as too cool to punctuate that i would manually remove apostrophes. i have since ceased because i actually don't care anymore and this is probably a metaphor about being a poser. I've learned NOTHING)
-
Close gate? No it's all the way over there.
"shut gate?"
"no, it's open"
"latch gate!!"
"no this one has a knob, see?"
"listen here u lil shit–" -
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
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.
-
A slight tangent into spelling, but I think "milktoast" is perfectly evocative of the idea the user is trying to get across.
-
You must have hated Mark Twain.
No one points a gun at Data and stays on my good side.
-
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.
Would've: fine.
Would have: fine.
Would of: me go mental! Why do people do this?! Argh! -
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
As long as we can understand each other, I am very forgiving with these sorts of things. Different cultures and communities of all sizes use the same words in different ways, as it has always been. And like it will always be, I imagine. So who cares if they don't say it the way you would? If you understand what they are communicating and are not explicitly there to help them learn to speak differently, that would make you a dick for correcting them. Or even for looking down on them as if your use of the same has more value simply because you believe it does. It doesn't and that should be perfectly okay with any reasonable person imho
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
I feel like a lot of the grammar sticklers out there only speak one language, and their lack of sympathy towards people speaking English as a second or third language is low.
If you can convey your point– good enough for me!
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
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.
-
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 like y'all're
-
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.The issue is when it is done publicly, it is almost always done in bad faith to try and shame/put someone down and dismiss everything they said due to a mistake.
If you want to teach someone you should send them a private message. Don't put them on blast in front of everyone. It shows a lack of empathy and depicts you as someone who wants to appear superior/better than them.
Of course, there are ways to do it publicly but courteously, for example something like "just fyi, it's they're not their
but anyway, I do agree with what you're saying [or] it was interesting to read your take on this" -
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
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.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
It is perfectly cromulent to use "less" in place of "fewer".
-
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]This is how you're supposed to do it in Dutch.
The teacher said "silence!".
Vs
The teacher said "silence"!
Mean something completely different. Although a few large literature publishers do punctuation before bracket because of translation ease, and novels almost never contain partial quotes anyway AND they include the optional comma at all times, which causes
"Silence!," said the teacher.
Shudder
-
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]Especially also when you're using them to be facetious.
He's "talented".
He's "talented."
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
The right to gleefully split infinitives.
-
Would've: fine.
Would have: fine.
Would of: me go mental! Why do people do this?! Argh!I will accept "would ve" before "would 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"
