So..

Wears you're rant?

I love the time bug.

How many posts can I fit in before the first?

Speaking of rants

Last one, I swear.

The English language - rants welcome, be warned
 

Every so often, a little steam builds up on this subject. Seems harmless enough to blow it off in a well-marked little thread that doesn't need to bother anyone who isn't interested.

If your not innerested, then you should of stayed away from hear cuz of it's title.

Its an outrage.

A quick primer:

rain - this is water falling from the sky
rein - this is the harness or straps used to control an animal
reign - this is the rulership of a leader

If you are assuming control of something, you are "taking the reins" -- just like you would if you were becoming the driver of a horse-drawn carriage. See the reference?

If you are trying to get control of something that is getting out of control, you seek to "rein in" the situation. Once again - it's metaphorically just like grabbing the leather straps that keep the horses from running away from the carriage.



(We'll leave the FBCB author out of this)

Theres a problem with the machine, FOFC will self destruct in 1 minute.


I love you all, goodbye.






Loren, holla at me sometime.

Good for you, you located one of the several deliberate errors in the sentence. You're a shining star.

Suicane -

What he meant to say was:

If your knot innerested, than ewe should of stayed aweigh from hear cuz of it's title.

QS I remember reading a while back that you were a college professor (economics I think?). If so I'm curious, do you ever correct your student's grammar on their assignments? Would you return a paper ungraded if the the grammar is too terrible?

Here's a sneaky little one that bothers me:

Capitol: The building where the federal or state legislatures meet or the name of an old record label
Capital: All other uses of the word including referring to city that is home to a Capitol.

If you are meeting in the state capitol, then you are meeting in the state legislature building. If you are in the state capital, you can be any where in that particular city. The White House is in the capital but it is not part of the Capitol.

Excellent use of italicization, by the way.

What is the opposite of more?

It depends.

If the things you are describing is measured in countable, discrete (not to be confused with discreet) units, then the word you want is fewer. If the noun is plural, then you almost always should use fewer. Fewer calories. Fewer touchdowns. Fewer problems. Fewer dollars. And so forth.

If the thing you are describing is not countable, but rather quantifiable as a masurement or just as a comparison -- then the word you want is less. If the noun is singular, then you almost always should use less. Less fat. Less scoring. Less trouble. Less money. And so forth.


This is a very widely made mistake (specifically using "less" all the time, rather than deliniating as above) -- and if you don't have a buzzer that goes off in your head when you say, write, or hear phrases like "less dollars" then it may be tough to learn, i'm guessing.

Yep. In Tallahassee, we have a fairly large street/highway called Capital Circle - which doesn't run near the Capitol, incidentally, but runs around the Capital City.

My guess, as a many of these mistakes are, it results from quick typing and rarely looking too deep to correct errors. I know personally I try to go back and at least try to pick out the bigger errors, but if it is not a direct misspelling, I'll probably miss it.

Shouldn't that just be "italics"? :p

Lose/loose...

why do so many on the web get this screwed up and mistake "lose" for "loose"?

I make it very clear to my students that I value clear, accurate, and professional presentation. I tell them an ominous (and mostly true) story about throwing resumes into the trash when the cover letter has a grammatical error... and they tend to respond to that. I then explain how I will ruthlessly deduct points for any writing errors in the papers they submit to me.

By and large, I receive structurally excellent work. Frequently they don't understand economics worth a damn, but they sure manage to get all the its and it's straightened out. Funny how proper motivation can clear up this sort of thing pretty effectively.

Then/than is one of the most annoying and most common screwups.

Was/were confuses a lot of people too:

If I was taller I could reach it.

I believe that's even grammatically correct!

Don't you think it's time to let a new bug live up your ass for a while? This one could use a little fresh air...

My top three:

1. "should of" instead of should've
It's not used for brevity and obviously isn't a typo. Unless it's some sort of l33t speak that I don't know about, it shows a lack of education.

2. one / won
They're homynyms, but their meanings are not even close to each other's.

3. lose / loose
They share four letters but are not homynyms.

A major problem is that if anyone points out a grammatical mistake, they are the ones who are villified. English was always my weakest subject, and I'm still unsure of when to use who/whom and effect/affect. If someone would point out a mistake, I wouldn't lash out at them, I'd look at it as a learning experience.

I generally don't take things too seriously on message boards, and realize that everyone makes mistakes from time to time (especially myself). However, if a poster constantly butchers the language, I'll tend to ignore him or think less of his opinion.

edit: can't spell homynyms :)

Good example. This one bugs the hell out of me, particularly because my daughter has a Winnie the Pooh book she likes to read, and this is repeatedly screwed up. And every time my daughter reads it, I cringe, but I figure 5 years old is probably too young to explain why the book is wrong.

The book is about Roo deciding whether Kanga is the "very best momma," and he goes through each of the Pooh characters in the same fashion:

If Rabbit were my momma...
If Owl were my momma...
If Piglet were my momma...

It drives me abso-frickin-lutely crazy!

Isn't that correct, though? If I'm reading this right, that is.

I saw your momma the other day at the airport. She was sniffing luggage.

I think this is a mistake.

Seeing a grocery store with a sign over its express lane that boldly reads "8 ITEMS OR LESS" drives me nuts. I've thought often about complaining about it, but I generally resign myself to it being a fruitless exercise.

"Towards", "irregardless", and "I have got..." (or "I've got...") pretty much round out my list of errors that are akin to scraping fingernails on a chalkboard.

It is. And it's my biggest language pet peeve. This trend to misuse myself and occasionally yourself drives me crazy. Usually the improper use of a reflexive pronoun shows up when someone is trying to sound more intelligent (not necessarily the case here) in a business or formal setting.

Little do they know that they're actually screwing it up. If "I" or "me" would work, then don't use "myself" instead. Simple rule.

Why'd you link to the same thing I did? Or did you not see I linked it and it's a coincidence? Either way, weird.

The myself one bugs me a lot. I think bosses are required to use it to sound like they know more than their subordinates who shouldn't even correct them.

Yes.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

I'm very bad about that... :o

This is mainly a regional dialect issue, but as someone born and raised in Washington, I hate...

...when people pronounce it WARSHington

...when people ask, "The state?"

Well I'll be. I guess that's probably the best reason for not having mentioned this to my daughter!

The funny thing is, the rules are so specific that there is really no practical reason for them:

if clauses—the traditional rules. According to traditional rules, you use the subjunctive to describe an occurrence that you have presupposed to be contrary to fact: if I were ten years younger, if America were still a British Colony. The verb in the main clause of these sentences must then contain the verb would or (less frequently) should: If I were ten years younger, I would consider entering the marathon. If America were still a British colony, we would all be drinking tea in the afternoon. When the situation described by the if clause is not presupposed to be false, however, that clause must contain an indicative verb. The form of verb in the main clause will depend on your intended meaning: If Hamlet was really written by Marlowe, as many have argued, then we have underestimated Marlowe’s genius. If Kevin was out all day, then it makes sense that he couldn’t answer the phone.


I don't believe the traditional rules are closely followed to these specifications. Although, I wiill admit the book appears to be technically correct.

But it sounds bad, because "I were" just doesn't make sense like "I was" does.

That's definitely a dialect thing - my mother-in-law is from Jersey, and talks about doing the warsh (laundry) and I make fun of her for it. And my 5 year old picked up on it and now corrects here every time she says it. I lost a few points with her for that, I think.

I guess that demonstrates another problem: When mistakes become common, proper usage is more difficult.

So "including myself" should have been "including me"?

Edit: "Everyone, including me, ..." would probably be better.

Is it close to Chicargo?

I dislike when people say "vice-uh versa". That's all.

dola...


ooh! and when people say, "all intensive purposes."

That being said, I will seriously feel slighted if you don't correct any such errors I make in my FOFC writings. These are the things I feel I do well at but ultimately want to be better at. I want to communicate more accurately.

I feel like such a looser if I don't. ;)

Oh, and I am fully comfortable with the less vs fewer thing but my fellow FOFC'ers have made sure I can spell definite, which was a hard one for me to learn. :)

I still think funner should be a word though. I know it's not but it darned well should be. :)

More fun sounds like a certain schedule II drug that we shouldn't relate to such innocent thoughts such as fun. Funner is the safer though less accurate choice for me. :)

i'm pretty much the most articulate person in the world

I think he meant...

This trend to misuse 'myself' and occasionally 'yourself'

Certainly "Warshington" is on the list of things I hate to hear. It is just not near, as high on the annoyance list as "nucular".

The whole Subjunctive form thing is apparently over my head, because I don't even have a vague recollection of those rules, and I had a pretty good English education.

"Should of" causes me to cringe a bit.

I often catch myself saying or about to say myself instead of me. The above complainer is correct, that I seem to want to do it in more formal situation. Most commonly is heading up a conference call. "Here on this end we have Yada Yada, and myslef". I have gotten to the point where if I don't stop myself from saying it, I'll correct myself.

I am a reformed possessive it'ser. I sometimes, now have to force myself to use an apostrophe when abbreviating "it is".

I am an unabashed abuser of commas. I have no earthy clue when it is proper to use a semi-colon or a colon, yet I use them both.

Oh another pet-peeve is the use of sight when referring to a web site.

Some of these don't bother me.

I understand the whole less versus fewer thing, but I don't think I'd ever have a problem with "X items or less". Probably because it is in a different form, because "8 or less items" would bother me.

I have gotten to the point where people misusing homynyms, because while the there, they're, and their situation is quite clear to me, and annoys me as well. I have reread message board posts and seen myself misuse them. Apparently I type by ear.

I honestly don't understand the "I have got", "I've got" thing. I don't think it is common for folks to mixup have got and have, so I must be missing something.


Most annoying of all, and we have actually argued about it here, but is the spoken use of "an historic". Actually it bothers me to see it used even in writing, but at least in writing there is a reason for it, albeit an archaic one.

Would someone please educate me again on the proper use of who versus whom?

"Who" is used when the pronoun is the subject of a sentence or clause (nominative case).
Who is at the door? Give the ball to the player who will score.
(Who is the subject of the verb "is." Who is the subject of the verb "will score.")

"Whom" is used when the pronoun is an object in a sentence (objective case).
To whom am I talking? Montana is the quarterback whom I drafted first.
(Whom is the object of the preposition "to." Whom is the object of the verb "drafted.")

Basically, you need to know how to tell the word is functioning as a subject of object in a sentence.

You should break in at night and spray paint FEWER over the LESS. Maybe start a guerilla organization.

Your interest is not peaked.

Your interest is piqued.

Nothing wrong with wheels's post above.

I usually explain it:
Use who like you use I, and use whom like you use me.

Terms like nominative and objective tend to make many people shudder and give up on grammar altogether. But most everyone grasps the often-used pronouns, and how to use them (implicitly the exact same deliniation).

Very true... but there aren't all that many people who misuse this in writing, I don't find. I think many/most of the people who lack the command to properly spell it also lack the command to think of using such a phrase in the first place.