What are your grammar bugbears?
-
“I see your pedantry, and raise you triple-dog pedantry!”
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The difference being that my "pedantry" is informed by history and linguistic theory, and is intended to stop linguistic prejudice, as opposed to the pedantry threads like this are magnets for: perpetuating linguistic prejudice while being completely wrong in the process.
Edit: Typo
-
A wall of text with no punctuation.
It's getting (or has been for some time) terrible on Reddit. Kids just narrating into their phones without taking a breath and clicking post without reading back over that text wall. I find this primarily in the paranormal subs that I read when I can't fall asleep at night.
-
The difference being that my "pedantry" is informed by history and linguistic theory, and is intended to stop linguistic prejudice, as opposed to the pedantry threads like this are magnets for: perpetuating linguistic prejudice while being completely wrong in the process.
Edit: Typo
You have an unnecessary comma in there.
-
You have an unnecessary comma in there.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Not with the inflection I intended that sentence to be pronounced with, illustrating quite nicely how writing is not language.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I absolutely detest the practice of saying the "the proper nouns of the world," i.e the Tom Brady's of the world. Or the Empire State buildings of the world. First off, it's a proper noun. The implication of a proper noun is there is only one specific instance. Second, that's diminishing to the proper noun used by lowering that status to the mean. Last, it's usually used in a sports context to unnecessarily group up a bunch of players even though we already know the context of why they're being grouped up for comparison. It's just fucking dumb. It really grinds my gears.
-
I absolutely detest the practice of saying the "the proper nouns of the world," i.e the Tom Brady's of the world. Or the Empire State buildings of the world. First off, it's a proper noun. The implication of a proper noun is there is only one specific instance. Second, that's diminishing to the proper noun used by lowering that status to the mean. Last, it's usually used in a sports context to unnecessarily group up a bunch of players even though we already know the context of why they're being grouped up for comparison. It's just fucking dumb. It really grinds my gears.
Oh, great, now I’m going to notice this one too. Thanks for causing me more consternation.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
People who use "can" to mean either "can" OR "can't" and expect you to work out what they mean from context.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"What" and "which" being used interchangeably.
-
"What" and "which" being used interchangeably.
Oh that's a good one. I can feel my blood pressure rising.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Some of mine in no particular order:
- Comma splices.
- Using apostrophes to make abbreviations plural. It's UFOs, not UFO's. This goes for decades, too. It's 1920s, not 1920's.
- Putting punctuation in the wrong place when parentheticals are involved (like this.) (Or like this).
- Same for quotations. Programmers in particular seem averse to putting punctuation on the inside where it usually belongs.
- Mixing up insure, ensure, and assure.
- Using 'that' where 'who' is more appropriate. For example, "People that don't use their blinkers are annoying."
-
The downside is that with appositive phrases present the Oxford comma can introduce ambiguity:
"Thanks to my mother, Mother Teresa, and the pope."
In the Oxford comma system this is ambiguous between three people (1. my mother 2. Mother Teresa 3. the pope), and two people (1. my mother, who is Mother Teresa 2. the pope). Without the Oxford comma it's immediately clear that ", Mother Teresa," is an appositive phrase.
The opposite happens as well, where Oxford commas allow true appositives to be unintentionally read as lists:
"They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook", where Betty is the maid mentioned.
This ambiguity is easily fixed, of course, but then again so is any ambiguity from not using an Oxford comma as well.
Note that I use the Oxford comma myself, but it's still worth mentioning that both systems are ambiguous, just in different ways.
Interesting. I never thought of that before. Thanks!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Whilst
-
This post did not contain any content.
You do something ON purpose or BY accident, you don't do anything ON accident!
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
'Who' Vs 'whom'.
Answer the question with 'he' Vs 'him' and match the 'm's is an easy rule of thumb.
He went to the park: who went to the park?
You called him: Whom did you call?
I understand why it's falling out of usage, as the strong SVO eliminates the need for accusatives, I wouldn't be surprised if 'him' and 'her' go away next. Knowing and using 'whom' sure helped me with the '-n' affix when learning Esperanto though, also fuck '-n' signed: English speakers. Replace the word with whom, him or her and if it's clumsy you don't need the -n.
Now, if I could just wrap my head around 'si' Vs 'li', 'ŝi' and 'ri'. Or, a solid rule of thumb, that would be so nice. I promise I'm not a toddler, I just talk like one.
Whom ya gonna call? Ghostbusters!!!I'm sorry
-
I get hung up on i.e. vs e.g. I'm not sure this counts as grammar though...
I also understand the meaning is not very known so many people confuse the two but I wish it was overall well understood so that the message is very clear.E.g. is used when enumerating examples, it doesn't have to include all possibilities. Like saying "for example..."
I.e. is to demonstrate exactly what we are talking about. It's like saying "by that I mean this".
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I know the difference between i.e and e.g. but I've never really seen the point in i.e. if you're just going to enumerate what you mean anyway. It is like using "it" to replace a noun, but then explaining what you meant by "it" right next to the usage:
It (using i.e.) is like using "it" (the pronoun used as a shorthand for other nouns) to replace a noun, but then explaining what you meant by "it" (the pronoun used as a shorthand for other nouns) right next to the usage.
It's clumsy, just use the list if you're going to list them anyway.
I like dairy products i.e. milk cream, cheese and yoghurt.
I like milk, cream, cheese and yoghurt
-
I know the difference between i.e and e.g. but I've never really seen the point in i.e. if you're just going to enumerate what you mean anyway. It is like using "it" to replace a noun, but then explaining what you meant by "it" right next to the usage:
It (using i.e.) is like using "it" (the pronoun used as a shorthand for other nouns) to replace a noun, but then explaining what you meant by "it" (the pronoun used as a shorthand for other nouns) right next to the usage.
It's clumsy, just use the list if you're going to list them anyway.
I like dairy products i.e. milk cream, cheese and yoghurt.
I like milk, cream, cheese and yoghurt
I am firmly in thread-OP's boat and wanted to disagree with you, but I searched my email/sms comment history to find examples of when I used "i.e." (to refute you) and you're right: I could have been more concise in every single instance.
I often used "i.e." to essentially repeat myself.. to "drive the point home", much like I'm doing right now.
It's something I actually hate about myself, that I ramble on and on when I've already made my point. Sorry to everyone that read this entire comment.. I promise I'm working on it.
-
This cafe
I mean I try not to be a dick about spelling and grammar and stuff these days, but come on!
I feel this way when people reference decades like, "it was acceptable in the 80's".
If anything, the apostrophe should be in front to denote the year being truncated: '80s
-
Pronouncing familiar as fermiliar.
Ooooooh, mine is pronouncing onion as ungyin
-
I am firmly in thread-OP's boat and wanted to disagree with you, but I searched my email/sms comment history to find examples of when I used "i.e." (to refute you) and you're right: I could have been more concise in every single instance.
I often used "i.e." to essentially repeat myself.. to "drive the point home", much like I'm doing right now.
It's something I actually hate about myself, that I ramble on and on when I've already made my point. Sorry to everyone that read this entire comment.. I promise I'm working on it.
There's value in accentuating a point, don't let me make you feel otherwise. Just for me, personally, I don't like using i.e.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I actually came across one of mine in this thread where someone was talking about an unrelated one of theirs: The plural of a word that ends with "st" is "sts", not also "st". If you write it like that because that's how you say it, it's because you're also saying it wrong.
