WHY does the photo of the truck show up correctly on my desktop, but upside down on the iPad??? I give up! It looks sideways here, but readable if you're on an iPad. I'll never understand computers or iPhones (took the pic with mine)

Regarding ending a sentence with the word "with" as in:

"Are you coming with?"

I was taught throughout middle and high schools that this was both incorrect and lazy. Incorrect as in violating rules of grammar, and lazy as in not taking the energy to complete the sentence with the appropriate adverb such as me, him, etc.

Apparently, I was not taught proper English. My apologies for speaking too quickly.

And another one: "none are" instead of "none is.

Other folks who get bugged by incorrect usage! We are so few.

You guys will enjoy "A Way with Words" on NPR. It's not on every local station, but if it airs in your area, you'll love it. Meanwhile, here's their web site where you can sample the wares.

Here is a link that might be useful: A Way with Words

How do you say - we hit a sensitive nerve.
Freeman - definitely from the midwest with the 2x4's..Grrr

My favorite book but I need to find a copy of my own.

The Joy of Lex - it is a derivative of my real name.

Oh- I need to stop putting exclamation points everywhere....

Anybody ever read the Sweet Potato Queens book? Halarious! Author is Jill Conner Browne. I really like her use of words like "myownself" and "hisownself" but its really southern talk (she's from Mississippi)

I am guilty of some of the things mentioned here, yet have pet peeves of my own. I hate it when people use "there" "they're" and "their" wrong. Or "than" and "then." I will however, use "cuz" when I'm too lazy to type out "because." I also will use kinda, and gonna. I have 3 boys in their 20's and do a lot of texting and it does rub off. So shoot me.

ROTFLMAO at this here thread! :)

(Now I'm gonna ask a kitchen-related question on another thread and I'll be nervous as @$*% when typing!)

One other thing about Sweet Potato Queens - she has one book called her "Big Ass Cookbook and Financial Planner" for all the foodies here - there are some really good recipes in that thar book LOL!

Here is a link that might be useful: Big Ass Cookbook and Financial Planner

All of the above! My mother ingrained in me the usage of I and me. Or is it, my mother ingrained the usage of I and me in me?

My husband says, "I'm going to the doctors." But he is only seeing one doctor.

My husband also says, "I looked everywheres." What is "everywheres"? And now my kids say that. It drives me crazy! I'm always correcting them.

I am guilty of writing Tx instead of Thanks.

I am guilty of writing and saying "My bad". The president of my company also says and writes that.

It's interesting how life has become so casual. Remember the days of wearing skirts, dresses, and hosiery to work? I think respect has gone down the tubes.

breezy-I'm sticking with you. I do not like the dangling 'with' question.

momand3boys - quite a bit more casual but I'd HATE to go back to hosiery. I don't even want to go there. I don't own a pair!

mountaineergirl-I am not going to go back and re-read any of my posts. I am sure I've got some issues. :) But on the upside it didn't seem to inhibit receiving help!

And another one: "none are" instead of "none is.

Both are correct, depending.

Thanks for posting the book deedles. I will buy(used)copies for my two friends who are copyeditors at Simon and Schuster (or the shoestore as we call it). I'm sure it will make them scream. Well they do that all day long so maybe I should buy them adult beverages instead...

EATREALFOOD: buy both.

I don't do the "with" thing, either. Bugs me. With what?

Okay, I am getting sucked into the vortex of this thread!

First, to answer Cavimum:

Now, about that "The Johnson's, Established in 1997."
I think that the word House is understood, hence the possessive 's. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

I quite agree that House would work. However, we still have a big apostrophe mistake. Typically more than one Johnson lives in the house. It should The Johnsons' if we are going to be using a possessive. If it is the Johnson's, only one Johnson gets to be in the house and the rest have to go stay at Motel 6.

"Here's a stumper for you: I grew up with the colloquialism "That's a whole nother kettle of fish" or similar phrases. As near as I can tell, someone along the way construed "another" as two words and stuck a modified between them. But in writing, should it be "a whole other", "a whole 'nother" (vernacular) or do you just go formal with "that's another kettle of fish entirely"?

Marcolo, my husband and I joke about "a whole nother" all the time, to the point that when someone else innocently uses the phrase, we give each other a raised eyebrow. We think it should be a "whole other" in writing.

"And another one: "none are" instead of "none is.
Both are correct, depending."

Nope. It is always "None is." The test is, you could substitute "not one" or "no one" for "none." And both of those examples always are singular. As Three Dog Night taught us, one is the loneliest number.

I am guilty of abusing ellipses, especially while texting. My daughter and her friends call them the 'awkward silence' dots and dislike them, so I am trying to discontinue the practice.

An observation: while I mentally cringe when I hear and see certain abuses, my writing style on this forum is quite casual and I see that I am committing other abuses of my own (ellipses, run-on sentences, etc.). I doubt I will change how I post but I can assure you I will always strive to never misspell anything!

The piece of grammar I never understood: lay and lie, particularly with respect to describing the tanning process correctly.

Nope. It is always "None is." The test is, you could substitute "not one" or "no one" for "none."

Sorry, wrong. None is either plural or singular.

Check the dictionary:
none
pronoun, singular or plural in construction \ˈnən\
Definition of NONE
1: not any
2: not one : nobody
3: not any such thing or person
4: no part : nothing

When it means "not any," it's plural. It has been so since before English was English.

You yanks may not agree with this one, but what makes me cringe is the use of the word pair.

'Sale! Buy two pair for $10.'
"I brought two pair shorts".

It should so clearly be I brought two pairS OF shorts.
Or buy two pairS for $10.

I believe in American English it may be grammatically correct (I say this after a long and quite heated discussion on the matter with a friend), but to a Brit this sounds so gratingly wrong it's almost unbearable.

I never correct someone's grammar (except DH) because I think it's rude to do so, but the pair/ pairs thing takes every ounce of self control I have. I just hate it.

I just have to say that I laughed when Oldbat (I think) corrected someone on another thread and then came back and apologized - fantastic stuff! : )

Oh and CEFreeman - what's wrong with 'where did you come from'?
'Where are you going to' is clearly not right, but 'where did you come from' sounds fine to me?

@momand3boys - Again, my theory of the understood word. Instead of saying "I'm going to the doctor's office", the word 'office' is understood. If I'm wrong, then oops, my bad. ;-)

Is iPhone's Siri guilty of the dangling participle, or some sort of grammar mistake, when she asks "What can I help you with?" I believe the correct way to ask would be "With what can I help you?" but I might be wrong about this.

oldbat2be - Me too. After a lifetime of my father trying to school me on the proper usage with the example of "you never lie a woman" or something of the like, I figured it out finally! I just never, ever, never, ever use lay or lie, or at least never around grammar nitpickians!

I find grammar fascinating from a academic stand point, but in real life I think it is embarrassing when red pencil wielder's can't control themselves in situations where it isn't warranted.

I was cured from the urge by significant other's use of "him and I" when I wised up that it said more about me fixating on it than it did about him using it.

Cawaps, I think the "that's a whole nother kettle of fish" is actually an infix in which whole is inserted into the word another.

Linguistically, infixing is a mode of affective grammar, giving info about the speakers mood, instead of information.

So un-infixed, it would become "that's another whole kettle of fish."

Fun thread : )

Hoboken, to quote my DH's idiot elementary Ed teacher, "if it sounds right, it probably is." Huh? We say, "Where did you come from?" all the time, but it should be, "From where did you come?" Which my mother beat into us.
"With what may I help you" is correct. Preposition in the correct place, plus the correct form of ability: may is permission, can is ability.

Also, that pair thing makes me nuts, too.
A "pair of twins" actually means 4 people, not two.
A "set of twins" is 2 people.
A "pair of shorts" is 1 pair.
A "pair of pants" is 1 pair.
Shrimp pl. is Shrimp, not shrimps.
Fruit pl. is Fruit (NOT FRUITS), unless it's the results of labor, such as, "Fruits of her labor."

OldBat, let me help you.
Lay: Where something rests, such as laying down.
Lie: As in "____ing, Cheating, MFing SOB" or POS, if you're being more accurate. If you want a translation of the acronyms, we'll conver(sate)e privately, ok?

I think "whole nother kettle of fish" is missing one thing: the '. "Whole 'nother kettle of fish" isn't it?

I can't get over people and their addiction to the reflexive pronoun.
I actually heard an airline ticket person announce over the microphone, "If anyone is willing to give up their seat for a free (4-letter F word) ticket anywhere xxx airlines flies in the continental U.S., (I'm getting to the point) see myself at the ticket counter.

huh?
There, you have it.
and yes, I've had my chocolate and espresso, thank you very much.

Cavimum - I know he means doctor's office, but it's one of those things that bugs the heck out of me when he says it! Of course his mother always says it, so why shouldn't he? :-)

Funny to find this thread just now, because I recently reread John McWhorter's wonderful book, "Our Magnificent B*stard Tongue." While I am one of those who says stilted things such as "this is she" and "it is I who..." and "he's younger than I," and while all the mistakes you have discussed also set my teeth on edge, I am trying bravely to adopt the descriptivist approach of linguists and lexicographers.

Melissastar is right. Languages live and grow continuously, and not always in the ways we would prefer. But we don't speak Middle English or Old English or Proto-Indo-European, for that matter, and we don't think it's a problem. We just don't want to see any more changes to our language. This is unreasonable.

We think it's "charming," or "quaint" when Elizabeth Bennett says "... the pigs were got into the garden." Actually, saying "the pigs had got into the garden" is one of the changes that happened in the intervening 200 years since the writing of "Pride and Prejudice." If Jane Austen came to dinner, no matter how properly I spoke, my late-20th century American English would sound wrong to her.

I'm as much of a language snob as anyone. I do judge people as relatively uneducated, or, if I'm feeling charitable, speaking in a dialect, if they say things like "I seen..." But I'm trying to get over it.

BTW - I know one should underline the title of a book, but I don't know how to do that when I'm typing in this box.

An anecdote about "lay" vs "lie," the proper use of which I will never forget. My 9th grade English teacher unfortunately chose the example "I lay the child on the bed." She didn't understand why every boy and some of the girls in the class tittered. At 14, everything has the possibility of dirty double meanings.

Interesting thread...of course, I love words and language. I admit to a great deal of ambivalence on many of these subjects. Some things -- misuse of reflexives, incorrect use of nominative or objective pronouns, mismatched subjects and predicates and misplaced modifies, for example --set my teeth on edge every time I hear them and probably always will.

Others still grate on my ears, but I have learned to grit my teeth and tolerate them, as I was educated on the squishiness of grammar rules. For decades I couldn't understand why certain spellings and punctuation rules were always being changed by copy editors, when I was absolutely certain that they were correct, having had them beaten into my head by tough-minded middle-school grammar teachers. I finally realized that the rules I had learned at school in the 60's in southern New England were actually British. (Apparently, grammar teachers in Rhode Island adhered to the old ways in grammar as in cuisine...fish and chips was always served with malt vinegar!)
Now, I find I am nearly as annoyed by folks who insist that the way they were taught is the ONLY correct way as I am by unequivocally poor grammar. Of course, I may be overly sensitive to this, as a fair amount of my professional work week is spent battling with copy editors who demand that something be rewritten, making it convoluted and cumbersome but, in their opinion, grammatically correct, or with reporters who insist that the way they originally wrote something is just fine because "that's the way I've always heard it."

On some issues there simply are no absolute caveats: Ending a sentence with a preposition; when to hyphenate; when a collective noun takes the singular verb form or the plural verb form; whether "news" is always singular or if it is sometimes singular; and lots more. The best you can do is agree to use a single source (this particular dictionary, that particular style book, etc.) as your definitive guide and stick with it.

Lie and lay started making more sense after I studied German (my German is very rusty, so if I mess this up, maybe someone fluent can correct me).

In German, you have the verb legen, which corresponds to lay, and always takes an object. That is, you have to lay something, you can't just lay. The main definition is "to put or place [something] in a horizontal position or a position of rest." Ich lege das Buch auf den Tisch. I lay the book on the table. Legen in German is completely regular, meaning that all of the conjugations of the verb follow the normal rules. In English lay is mostly regular, except that we write laid instead of layed for the past tense (for reasons I can't quite fathom). I lay, you lay, he lays, she lays, they lay; I laid, you laid, he laid, she laid, they laid.

On the other hand the German verb liegen, and the English verb lie, do not take an object. The definition is "to be in a recumbent position; to recline." Das Buch liegt auf dem Tisch. The book lies on the table. You never "lie" something on the table. Lie can also mean "to get into a recumbent position," as in, "I am going to lie on the bed." There's still no object in that sentence.

The lay/lie confusion comes up because the irregular past tense conjugations of lie overlap with the present tense conjugations of lay. The past tense of lie is lay: Today, the book lies on the table. Yesterday, the book lay on the desk. But, "Today, I lay the book on the table" and "Yesterday, I laid the book on the desk."

If you can just remember that if your sentence has an object, you want lay, and lay is pretty much regular except for the alternative spelling of "layed," you'll be a step up from most of the population.

A few more pet peeves on mine.

Word use: "Staunch" versus "stanch" (you stanch the flow of blood, but he is a staunch friend) and gauntlet versus gantlet (a gauntlet is a armored glove while a gantlet is what you mean when you say "run the gantlet").

There are a lot of things, inlcuding the word use examples above, that irritate me a lot more when they are in print and got past and editor. Professional writers should know better, and if they don't, their editor should catch it.

Cavimum,

You said >

You are correct that "office" is understood, just as "house" is understood in that Johnson example. What you are missing is that you are really saying is that the house belongs to the Johnsons, correct? You wouldn't say "the house belongs to the Johnson", would you? No, because there is more than one Johnson. The Johnsons live there. Therefore, it's "The Johnsons' house". Make "Johnson" plural BEFORE you make it possessive. "Johnson's" is just pluralizing a single Johnson. "House" can certainly be understood, but "The Johnson's, established 1890" doesn't make any sense, as you haven't pluralized it yet. You've just made one Johnson possessive.

As for the doctor's office being understood, in this case, there could only be one doctor. "Doctor's office" or "Doctors' office" are both correct, depending on how many doctors you are talking about. Rarely is someone referring to only one Johnson when they mistakenly type "Johnson's", however.

Also, saying "The Johnsons, established 1890" is perfectly fine, too, even with no "house" understood, as you are saying the Johnson family was established then.

Does that make sense now? I can't tell you how many Christmas cards I get every year signed "Merry Christmas, from The Smith's!" AHGGGHHH.... again, it should be "The Smiths". More than one Smith, aka a family.

@annettacm - LOL I meant to theorize "The Johnson family's house" and didn't do that. Either way, I think your are right. I was in school learning this stuff ages ago and I always reserve the right to be wrong. ;o)

BTW, I need that tee shirt that says STTE of, "Inside every old person is a young person wondering what the **** happened?!"

To be safe, the Johnsons should just write "The Johnson Family " and just leave the house out of it. :)

You are not the only one. As I said, my Christmas cards prove that the majority of people don't know how to pluralize their own last names. It's especially hard with people who have names ending in "s" or "z". The Schwartz family pluralized would be "The Schwartzes". I get more cards signed "The Schwartz's" than anything else, which is, of course, incorrect. It's like people think they are changing the spelling of their name if they put an -es on the end. It's okay, people.... it really is okay. :) But it is a very common mistake.

I do "whole 'nother," at least out loud. I don't write that way.

My DH just looked that up a week or so ago, in the Dictionary of American Regional English. He likes to note my so-called odd phrases and look them up. I don't have anything on him, though, except that he can't pronounce "Chicago" right. Also, though it is technically correct to pronounce the "wh" in "while," "where," and "which" with the h clearly verbalized, I still pronounce them "wile," "wear," and "witch," and it still seems odd (after 20 years) to hear him pronounce the "wh" as in "who."

Here is a link that might be useful: DARE

Many things that people think are wrong, aren't.

You can certainly start a sentence with "and," end a sentence with a preposition and stick a split infinitive in between. None of these are proscribed by the rules of grammar.

I find most business managers today are functionally illiterate. Their writing is so disorganized and riddled with errors it is impossible to understand; very often, they do not have any idea what they mean, only that they want to sound "tough" and ready to "turbocharge." I got an email this morning from someone explaining that when she wrote yes, she really meant no. Confusing yes and no is quite a feat.

I just came back from the doctor's office. They had a container full of pens; you know the kind -- they had silk flowers on them to prevent theft, and the container was a vase full of glass pebbles. Thus, not unreasonably, they decided to put an identifying note on the vase, as the true nature of the pens was somewhat obscured. Sooo, of course, they put a note on it that said Pen's.

Ironically, on the trip to the office, I had been mentally composing a post to this thread along the lines of Ginny's or Melissa's above. So I was tossing around sentences in my mind about the greengrocers' apostrophe (as it is known across the pond).

I was the only patient in the waiting room. Another patient came in, and she and the receptionist started giggling conspiratorially and talking about the pens. Seeing my quizzical countenance, the other patient explained to me that she was there not long ago with her 14-year-old son, and he had threatened (or perhaps attempted) to extend the apostrophe into an "i." The apostrophe in Pen's. ( I'll pause while you process that.)

So, they waited for my response, and I BLURTED out "That is funny -- I had just been sitting here trying refrain from getting up and crossing out that incorrect apostrophe!"

They gave me a funny look, and I went back to reading. :-)

Marcolo: Regarding "none," I am pretty sure what I told you is how I was taught in a college journalism course by a major editor. But, I actually think your "not any" makes logical sense. There are not too many situations one could use "none" with a plural verb though. I have been playing with it in my mind, but I have not had time to write examples out.

For the others who may not be following this portion of the thread, reprinted below.

C: Nope. It is always "None is." The test is, you could substitute "not one" or "no one" for "none."

M: Sorry, wrong. None is either plural or singular.

Check the dictionary:

none
pronoun, singular or plural in construction \ˈnən\
Definition of NONE
1: not any
2: not one : nobody
3: not any such thing or person
4: no part : nothing
When it means "not any," it's plural. It has been so since before English was English.

normalcy

There are numerous examples going back about 1100 years so they shouldn't be too hard to find.

None were missing.
None of my neighbors are here yet.
Almost none of the children can spell properly.
None of the chairs were comfortable.
etc.

I've always found the urban myth that none is singular to be really weird. It's simply incorrect beyond debate. But a lot of people like to practice armchair etymology. None looks like a contraction of no and one, so they assume it is. It's not. It goes back to the languages that predate English as a single word.

I want to weigh in on the use of apostrophes in pluralization. Now, I hate the errant greengrocer's apostrophe as much as anyone. I have been known to erase them when no one is looking, and sometimes when someone is. However, there ARE places that one must (or may) use apostrophe-s to pluralize. I must say that I disagree with Christine and a2gemini that 2x4's is patently wrong. Let me explain.

One uses an apostrophe if the meaning without one is unclear. Everyone, all experts, all casual speakers, all style guides, etc., agree that one uses 's to pluralize instances of lower-case letters:
Mary has been practicing her penmanship, and is making great progress with her d's.
If you were to disallow this usage, when Mary started working on her vowels, you would be faced with:
*Mary has been practicing her penmanship, and is making great progress with her as and her is.
So you can see why you need them there.

Should you also use an apostrophe to pluralize capital letters (majuscules)? The trend in English usage is to simplify where possible, getting rid of hyphens, diacritical marks, periods, etc., where they are not strictly needed. Thus, usage has started to avoid apostrophes in pluralization of capital letters, because usually you can discern the meaning:
I was playing Scrabble and was stuck with 3 Ts.
However, it is not always so clear. For example, let's say Mary was an erratic student; either she did well in the course (earning an A) or she did not complete her course, (earning an incomplete).
Correct: A's appeared often on Mary's report cards. I's, unfortunately, showed up in equal measure.
Confusing: *As appeared often on Mary's report cards. Is, unfortunately, showed up in equal measure.

Of course, standard advice would be to rephrase, but this contrived example shows that sometimes good usage demands an apostrophe.

What about abbreviations? Generally, if an abbreviation is formed of all capital letters with no periods, you can omit the apostrophe:
At the party, I was stuck talking to two MBAs and three MDs."
However, if you got stuck talking to two professors, and you omit the apostrophe, you have:
*At the party, I was stuck talking to two PhDs.
That is confusing; the mixture of uppercase and lower case does not clearly signal that the second lowercase letter, the s, has a different function. Thus, most style guides demand an apostrophe in this case:
At the party, I was stuck talking to two PhD's.

If you do use the periods in the abbreviation, the sources I checked required an apostrophe, because this is confusing:
*At the party, I was stuck talking to two Ph.D.s.

What about numerals? Many contemporary sources suggest no apostrophe for numbers of two digits or larger, but suggest one for single numerals. Just for fun, I pulled out a 1976 dictionary and checked their usage suggestions. Now I confess this is a decidedly descriptivist dictionary (American Heritage), but nonetheless they professed a strong preference for the apostrophe. Even in the case of say, the 1700's or the 1960's. They required an apostrophe for single numerals:
I've been rolling 7's and 11's all night!

Finally, we can come to Christine's example of 2x4. I argue that this case clearly admits the use of an apostrophe to improve its clarity. Consider if it were to be omitted. You are going down the aisle and see bins marked

1x3s
1x4s
5/4x4s
5/4x6s
2x2s
2x4s
4x4s
There seems to be some sort of code, perhaps like a SKU number? Granted, if you are Home Depot, you probably know what these mean. However, you have a mixture of numerals and lower case letters. Most of the people on this board would read 1x3s as "one-by-threes" but the uninitiated may scan it as "one-ex-three-ess," wondering "What does this code mean?" Here, 1x3's would be clearer.

Marcolo:

So you got me curious enough to hunt it down. Not all of your examples follow the rule. Here is the Associated Press Stylebook (copyright 2004, p. 173) entry verbatim:

none It usually means no single one. When used in this sense it always takes singular verbs and pronouns: None of the seats was in its right place. Use a plural verb only if the sense is no two or no amount: None of the consultants agree on the same approach. None of the taxes have been paid.

My father always insisted that the title of Agatha Christie's book _And Then There Were None_ should actually be _And Then There WAS None_. I've also been told that the traditional wedding vow should have "until death DOES us part," not "until death do us part."

In library school we learned about the awful noun, "aboutness." It means what such-and-such is about. I absolutely hate this word with a passion, and haven't gotten used to it yet. We also learned that the accepted Library of Congress keywords that you'd use in a search or to describe the subject of a book are updated every year. The LoC keyword "cookery" has been replaced by "cooking" only recently. That's an example of the difference between "taxonomy" and "folksonomy," in which some words, such as made-up words like "folksonomy," become accepted in usage.

Actually, I think we all have excellent writing skills on this board, regardless of grammar mishaps. We write in complete sentences. We capitalize the beginnings of sentences and proper nouns. Spelling is good, except when "autocorrect" intervenes. It is easy to understand what people are talking about (or you could say in lib-speak "the aboutness of each post is easy to identify," ugh). The writing is generally better than that of my local newspaper, much less the average facebook post or tweet.

One writing pet peeve: "that" and "which." The British use "with" the way I use "that," and they don't put a comma before the "which." I was taught to use the comma before which, but it isn't incorrect in Britain.

Anti-with-ers: The "missing" end of the phrase is clear by context. "Let's take it with" means "Let's take it with us." "Can I go with?" means "Can I go with you?"

Since my DH marvels at what seems to be a fascinating but completely bizarre turn of phrase every single time I use it, I've gotten to the point where neither version sounds right. I tend to say, "Let's take it with. Us." around him, and the "Us" always seems like an unnecessary addition that I have to tack on, but when I visit Chicago and everybody around me, including both English-major parents, says "Let's take it with," I'm excruciatingly aware of it and it doesn't quite sound right either. I really wish he and others could accept it as a charming regionalism, like "y'all" in the South.

Drbeanie - I can talk about the comma before "which." (Anything to avoid cleaning the house.) It has to do with whether it is restrictive or nonrestrictive. Compare "Taxis, which are dirty, may not enter the city of Boston" and "Taxis which are dirty may not enter the city of Boston." In the first case (nonrestrictive), the implication is that all taxis are dirty, and you'd better plan to take the subway. The information within the commas is extra description and not necessary to the main meaning of the sentence. In the second (restrictive), you can expect that any taxi you hail in Boston will be clean.

I also always thought that one used "who" referring to people, and "which" referring to other nouns, and "that" could be used in place of either.

Did I identify the aboutness of your post, or was my aboutness about something else?

Drbeanie, ditto what Ginny said. Moreover, I don't believe that British usage differs from American usage in the preferred word to introduce restrictive vs. nonrestrictive clauses. To be sure before posting, I just checked Fowler (The King's English, 1908 edition) and with a British co-worker. Fowler and my colleague assert, in agreement with my understanding and modern American usage guides, that it is preferred to use that (with no commas) to introduce restrictive clauses, and to use which (with commas) to introduce nonrestrictive clauses.

(Edited to resolve potential ambiguity of "contemporary," which I originally used instead of "modern.")

This post was edited by Angie_DIY on Thu, Dec 13, 12 at 15:19

While we're on the topic of grammar police, I'd like to comment on "may" vs "can." Some teachers, according to DD, still smugly answer "I don't know, can you?" when students ask if they "can go to the restroom," for instance. No, she can't unless you give her permission. These people are lucky they aren't saying it to me, or when I got back from the restroom I'd give a disquisition on the history of the English language and the origins of some inane grammar "rules."

They only get away with this because of their hierarchical relationship. Can you imagine answering your hostess in this way when she asks if she "can offer you more mashed potatoes"? Or worse, your boss, when she asks if she "can see your draft of the Kleinstuber presentation." In the first case you could end up with a lapful of mashed potatoes, and in the second, you could be fired. This particular nitpicking rule is an archaism that adds nothing to the clarity of our communications. And, in the end, good grammar should be about grace and clarity.

Thanks for letting me vent.

I'm enjoying this thread immensely. We clearly have a pro or two (see how I avoided having to pluralize pro?) in our midst. I had never heard about restrictive/nonrestrictive before, at least never called that.

How I write in emails to friends, or possibly on this board (wanna, gonna, ain't, you guys), would never show up in my business correspondence. Hopefully.

If the restrictive/nonrestrictive clauses are new to you, I learned the following. If the clause is essential to the understanding of the sentence, you should use no comma and a "that" to set off your clause. On the other hand, if the clause adds richness to the meaning, it is more likely to take a "comma-which." Here are two examples I put together.

The house that was built in 1906 is recognized as the best Craftsman home in the neighborhood.

vs.

Our house, which was built in 1906, has three mature holly trees in its yard.

Linelle,

You are smart to avoid pluralizing pro in writing. It is a Latin prefix that we are using casually as a complete word. (See the "dis" discussion earlier in this thread.) Constructing your sentence another way is creative. Finding a synonym is the other method.

I do agree with the prior posts that apostrophes can make things clearer with some plurals. However, when I am reading along, I will likely be distracted by either pros or pro's. Distracting the reader is never the intent of good writing.

Bravo, Ginny!

I think proper usage can be a difficult matter. On one hand, there are sloppy and ignorant (not meant in the pejorative sense) writers, and, depending on the formality of the situation, it irks us greatly to see them misuse the language. We certainly do not wish to be similarly guilty of irking others. On the other hand, it is all too tempting to try to formulate all-encompassing rules and to apply them faithfully, almost dogmatically. Real usage takes more discernment and judgement, and compassionate listening takes some tolerance.

(On a side note, I am becoming convinced as I age that this same principle -- rules are easier and useful, discernment is harder and better -- is active in many other domains, including, but not limited to, office politics and morality.)

Let me close with a wonderful quote from George Polya:

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry ... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. -George Polya, mathematician (1887-1985)

Dear LORD you all lost me way back. I'm just here to tell everyone that I'm now erasing half of what I write only to most likely, re-write it wrong ennyhoo! Just like I probably did right there. Right?

Glad y'all r havin' fun tho....

=0)

deedles, I know you were tweaking us a little in fun, but I applaud your use of "y'all." Used correctly, as in Southern or African American dialects, it serves a good purpose in English. We don't have a different pronoun or verb ending for the second person plural, as do most languages. Sometimes it really is much clearer if one can specify that one means "you all," not just you-the-person-I'm-talking-to.

Angie - Love that quote!

Here is another nit-picky usage that people abuse all the time, namely putting comparative adjectives in front of unique. Unique means one-of-a-kind; therefore using it with either more or most is incorrect. To wit, My new kitchen is the most unique in the neighborhood. Or, your kitchen is the most unique I have seen on this board. I know it's incorrect, but I do it myself all the time. Here's to all our unique kitchens!
lucia

Bumping this up because of a Facebook post I just read. See link below. LOL

Here is a link that might be useful: The Onion

Oh my gawd, that last paragraph in the article is hilarious! Gotta love the Onion.

Oh my gawd, that last paragraph in the article is hilarious! Gotta love the Onion.

My name is Shannon, and I employ the Oxford comma. I am quite a bit late to this party, but I do have a couple of additions.

"Fixing to" I will preface this by stating that I am from the south and have used this verbage my entire life. Though I was raised by highly educated and enlightened people, it is common phrasing here spoken by all. I was an adult before I understood that this was incorrect. By the way, it is fixin to not fixing to.

I was taught that a comma must follow a prepositional phrase at the beginning of a sentence, yet I see this less and less. Any comments or explanation by those of you who are definate experts?

Aonther pet peeve: double negatives

Cavimum, that article is hilarious.