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.
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
If I am clearly referring to myself (as in a text), I shouldn't have to inlude myself in the sentence. Ex: "just grabbing food" vs "I'm just grabbing food".
A lot of languages are pro-drop and do this when the context is clear (and sometimes when it isn't). I remember learning Japanese and people saying "we would never do that in English!". My counterexample was always that, if someone came to my house and asked where the beer is, I'd say "fridge." because that's all the information the hearer needs.
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.
I think outside of highly formalized writing (usually found exclusively in academia) grammar only matters to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the voice of the author.
It matters because it makes things easier to read. A wall of text with no punctuation or capitalization is difficult to parse, both for the reader and for the writer if they need to go back and make changes.
On the other hand, punctuation can be used incorrectly to convey things that might be part of how the author speaks. Examples being: using ellipsis to indicate trailing off at the end of a sentence, perhaps because you're still trying to find words to finish the thought, or using parentheses to indicate a slight tangent or clarifying statement, or failing to use a period at the end of a text message to indicate a softer tone and an openness to a response.
Capitalization and misspellings can be used similarly. Such as intentionally misspelling a word to indicate that it should be pronounced differently than usual, or capitalizing all or part of a word to add emphasis.
TLDR: Proper grammar matters for clearly conveying information, but intentionally breaking grammatical rules is a good way to add your voice, personality, and tone into your writing. And that is more important than being technically correct.
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.
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.
But, at the same time, this isn't a master's thesis.
Sometimes autocorrect picks the wrong there, and I don't notice. And when someone swoops in and says "it's they're" with nothing else to contribute to the actual conversation that's happening, they can fuck write off.
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"
Listen bruv, if you can understand what I'm saying enough to be able to correct it with 100% confidence than anything that was omitted was superfluous anyway.
Some of us do have "disabilities" though. My thumbs are big and hit wrong buttons on the phone. Dyslexia fucking sucks. I literally can write a whole word with its letters out of sequence, just did that a few hours ago. ADHD makes proofreading fucking tedious as hell. Often i try my best but sometimes i just cant be bothered.
Over all I agree with you though. It never hurts to have someone tell you that you fucked up. It does give you a chance to learn from your mistakes.
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.
Conversational/informal English, there are no rules and anything goes, speak/type however the fuck ya want. if you wouldn't wear a tuxedo to the gas station you don't need 100% proper punctuation and sentence structure for internet shitposting
written formal English, yeah I personally will judge you if you use the wrong "there/their/they're," but maybe future generations will collectively decide on one universal spelling cuz it's just fuckin easier, and that's fine! languages evolve no matter how much grumpy old women like me enjoy bitching/memeing about it lol
If you can replace the word with “he”, you always use who. If you can replace the word with “him”, you can use whom if you want to.
Whom did you lead into battle?
I led him into battle.
Who ate all the cake?
He ate all the cake.
The key takeaway is you can always use who and it will be correct, because who is both a subject and an object. So, if you don’t want to bother with the rule, just stick to who and you can’t go wrong.
if you are familiar with object vs subject in grammar you already know the rule, who is used when it's the subject, whom when the object:
Who is that?
That's who ate my ice cream.
Whom did you give ice cream to?
The ice cream went to the one whom I saw first.
This rule is the same as knowing when to use she or he vs when to use her or him, it's no different.
However, most people don't use whom correctly and it can just be avoided entirely, most people will just use who as the object anyway and it will sound more natural to them:
Who did you give ice cream to?
The ice cream went to the one who I saw first.
Using whom in these cases can make you sound formal or fancy, and draws attention.
There's a pretty trivial rule for getting this right. Phrase your sentence using who/whom as a question. Respond with he/him. If your response contains a "he", your initial statement should be "who"; if it contains a "him" then you're looking at a "whom" use.
ex: "To who/whom should the gold be given?" -> "To him" -> "whom"
ex: "Who/whom wants the gold?" -> "He wants the gold" -> "who"
ex: "Who/whom did you see at the party?" -> "I saw him" -> "whom"
ex: "The man who/whom called earlier is here" -> "Who/whom called?" -> "he called" -> "who"
It's pretty much a dead language feature anyway, at least in my area. Whom sounds pretentious as hell if you actually say it. Like, you'd get away about as well with thee or thou.
To me, it sounds like an incomplete list. With the 'and X', I know that X is the last thing in that set. I guess that only really matters in cases where you want to absolutely show that a set only contains certain members.
An “and” before the last item tells you it’s an inclusive list. An “or” before the last item tells you it’s a pick one. A “nor” tells you it wasn’t any of those. It’s word to wait to the last item to know what the list was, but English is a screwed up language.
Grammar was invented by big keyboard to sell more keys, fuck grammar. I was taught not to use Oxford comma here in Aus. Though I guess I do technically use it I just omit the "and" that tags along
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.
(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)
I don’t care if people say “chomping at the bit”, because it basically means the same thing as “champing at the bit”, and nobody uses the word champing anymore anyway.
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"
I used to get yelled at mid-sentence by a parent for incorrect grammar, and used to do the same to others as a result. I've mostly recovered. I still find imprecision irksome but, if everyone understands, I don't think it's a big deal.
I still think certain formal situations warrant proper grammar and spelling (from native speakers at least), such as a CV for a professional job.
i'm not prescriptive with grammar. it is descriptive. so "common usage" is fine by me.
and there are even racist undertones to a lot of it. sometimes the word "ask" gets pronounced as "axe" which some people throw fits of hissy all over the place.
Chaucer, the grandfather of modern English, had no problem using the "axe" version. so i'm more down with common usage for speech but knowing the variety of rules and how they have been used historically is a fun exercise in linguistic study and discourse.
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.
While I might use them interchangeably, as a non-native I would think "need to" is supposed to mean that the situation came out of necessity, such as feeling the need to pee or resorting to selling your car because of an empty wallet, while "have to" is more like the result of some rules or discipline, such as showing up to work in time - but I understand that the line between the two can be rather blurry.
As for my thing: there are a few shortened words in my language (similarly to the English "hubby", "preggo", etc.) that got shortened according to pronunciation, and not the original (longer) word, having a different spelling at the start (as if "circle" got shortened to "circ", but spelled as "cirk"). It feels like a kid came up with the spelling, and now it's the official form. It's bugging my inner spelling nazi every time I see it.
Relatedly, it really bugs me out when I'm watching English-language media from outside North America and someone says "what are we meant to do" in a situation where I would say "what are we supposed to do". Like, a lot. Best I can figure, it implies to me a sort of outside intention driving one's actions, as opposed to the mere regard implied by "supposed", and my anti-authoritarian ass rankles at that.
Wow. Do you know the feeling when someone brings your attention to something that you had been ignoring pretty much all your life, and from that point it drives you mad every single time? Yeah, you have just done that with the meant to/supposed to thing. You're SO totally right! Aaaand you cursed me.
Most of it. I don't know how people find the energy to give a shit about grammar in informal settings. If I can understand the meaning it's good enough for me.
outside of like academic settings, anything should go. check out the previous sentence where i inserted an unnecessary “like” as an example. it reflects my train of thought and i type as i think. same thing should go for slang and stuff, if the best way to get your point across is with ideas that have not been accepted by the academic world then that’s totally skibidi tubular, man.
I feel like "free reign" means the same thing as "free rein" anyway. As in you're not shackled in your rule; a despot. "He has free reign over his domain."
I've recently come to the position that really, there isn't truly such a thing as incorrect grammar. There's grammar that doesn't fit the norm for the people one is speaking to, and if it's different enough to impair the ability for the intended audience to understand what you're communicating it can be impractical or inadvisable, but since grammar isn't an intrinsic part of the universe outside of human creation, and since the way it's used changes whenever people "break it's rules" in numbers over time, it can't actually be wrong. After all, someone could view something written in a very closely related foreign dialect as another similar language written correctly, or one's own language written incorrectly, and there isn't really a non-arbitrary way to decide which is the case.
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.
What I wrote is grammatically incorrect, there is no full stop. You understood what I meant with no ambiguity despite an incorrect use of grammar. I literally did write that without adhering to grammatical rules and it didn't impede either of our abilities to communicate.
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 couldn’t convey our meaning.
The other is saying that grammar, I think perhaps “proper grammar” is made up by humans, and so doesn’t 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.
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.
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.
There are vague cases. A band could be a singular entity or a group of countable members, and whichever you use would come with a shading of connotation about that. "The band are all upset about this deal... The band isn't taking its roadies for granted."
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?
End a sentence with a preposition if you want to. And start one with a conjunction.
That's not just you, that's people who know the rules of the English language and don't care about Latin or what dead idiots thought.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with
Gotta love Merriam Webster. They are fantastic.
I like ending my sentences with and.
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.
Quote is full sentence: inside. Quote is part of sentence or word: outside.
Eg:
“Oh no!” he gasped.
And
Apparently she's “done with me”!
Love, an editor.
This is how you're supposed to do it in Dutch.
Vs
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
Shudder
Especially also when you're using them to be facetious.
He's "talented".
He's "talented."
For me it depends on if you are quoting someone (punctuation inside quote) or just using a phrase like “woke” (punctuation outside).
I really like to write 'gonna.'
I'm never gonna give it up.
I spells it like I says it
If I am clearly referring to myself (as in a text), I shouldn't have to inlude myself in the sentence. Ex: "just grabbing food" vs "I'm just grabbing food".
And we can drop "the" sometimes, "close gate".
I see you also play 80s text adventure games...
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–"
"Where wolf? There wolf! [points] There castle!"
A lot of languages are pro-drop and do this when the context is clear (and sometimes when it isn't). I remember learning Japanese and people saying "we would never do that in English!". My counterexample was always that, if someone came to my house and asked where the beer is, I'd say "fridge." because that's all the information the hearer needs.
In Spanish, the conjugation of the verb lets you drop the subject, which is eloquent.
“¿Qué haces?”
“Estoy
llegandollevando comida.”I'm not sure "I'm arriving food" is the best spanish out there
Whoops, that should be llevando, not llegando.
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.
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.
The right to gleefully split infinitives.
Adverbs as a rule can go anywhere in a sentence, so split away, I say!
It is perfectly cromulent to use "less" in place of "fewer".
Some would say it's fewer correct, however.
lol
The fact I understand all the vocabulary you used embiggens me.
I think outside of highly formalized writing (usually found exclusively in academia) grammar only matters to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the voice of the author.
It matters because it makes things easier to read. A wall of text with no punctuation or capitalization is difficult to parse, both for the reader and for the writer if they need to go back and make changes.
On the other hand, punctuation can be used incorrectly to convey things that might be part of how the author speaks. Examples being: using ellipsis to indicate trailing off at the end of a sentence, perhaps because you're still trying to find words to finish the thought, or using parentheses to indicate a slight tangent or clarifying statement, or failing to use a period at the end of a text message to indicate a softer tone and an openness to a response.
Capitalization and misspellings can be used similarly. Such as intentionally misspelling a word to indicate that it should be pronounced differently than usual, or capitalizing all or part of a word to add emphasis.
TLDR: Proper grammar matters for clearly conveying information, but intentionally breaking grammatical rules is a good way to add your voice, personality, and tone into your writing. And that is more important than being technically correct.
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!
To anyone who has a problem with singular they:
Roses are red, violets aren't blue
Singular they is older than singular you
Anyone who has a problem with singular they can eat my non-binary ass.
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.
But, at the same time, this isn't a master's thesis.
Sometimes autocorrect picks the wrong there, and I don't notice. And when someone swoops in and says "it's they're" with nothing else to contribute to the actual conversation that's happening, they can fuck write off.
You must have hated Mark Twain.
No one points a gun at Data and stays on my good side.
Language is anything but objective and is constantly evolving based on how people use it.
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"
Listen bruv, if you can understand what I'm saying enough to be able to correct it with 100% confidence than anything that was omitted was superfluous anyway.
Some of us do have "disabilities" though. My thumbs are big and hit wrong buttons on the phone. Dyslexia fucking sucks. I literally can write a whole word with its letters out of sequence, just did that a few hours ago. ADHD makes proofreading fucking tedious as hell. Often i try my best but sometimes i just cant be bothered.
Over all I agree with you though. It never hurts to have someone tell you that you fucked up. It does give you a chance to learn from your mistakes.
I'm really fond of using "I'mma" and "gonna".
I obviously wouldn't use these words in a professional document, but everywhere else I'mma use "gonna" and "I'mma" whenever I feel like it.
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!
I will accept "would ve" before "would of"
Agreed. I enjoy that I confused "because of" with "because have" in my own example tho
Don't confuse dialectal differences with bad grammar, please.
I like y'all're
Y'all'd've (YAWL-duh if your drawl is heavy enough): You all would have
Good effort, let's make it bigger: y'all'd'nt've
Because have? When and how has that ever been used?
Hah! I mightn't've thought enough about that example, probably because of a lack of sleep.
Conversational/informal English, there are no rules and anything goes, speak/type however the fuck ya want. if you wouldn't wear a tuxedo to the gas station you don't need 100% proper punctuation and sentence structure for internet shitposting
written formal English, yeah I personally will judge you if you use the wrong "there/their/they're," but maybe future generations will collectively decide on one universal spelling cuz it's just fuckin easier, and that's fine! languages evolve no matter how much grumpy old women like me enjoy bitching/memeing about it lol
who/whom.
Maybe it's because that English is not my first language but I always find it confusing.
If you can replace the word with “he”, you always use who. If you can replace the word with “him”, you can use whom if you want to.
Whom did you lead into battle?
I led him into battle.
Who ate all the cake?
He ate all the cake.
The key takeaway is you can always use who and it will be correct, because who is both a subject and an object. So, if you don’t want to bother with the rule, just stick to who and you can’t go wrong.
Ah it's kind of like Jeopardy! You've gotta visualize the answer to know how to phrase the question.
To whom/for whom is supposed to be the rule for when to use whom, but in American English it sounds way too formal.
Whomst is a fun one.
Whomst'd've
if you are familiar with object vs subject in grammar you already know the rule,
whois used when it's the subject,whomwhen the object:This rule is the same as knowing when to use
sheorhevs when to useherorhim, it's no different.However, most people don't use
whomcorrectly and it can just be avoided entirely, most people will just usewhoas the object anyway and it will sound more natural to them:Using
whomin these cases can make you sound formal or fancy, and draws attention.There's a pretty trivial rule for getting this right. Phrase your sentence using who/whom as a question. Respond with he/him. If your response contains a "he", your initial statement should be "who"; if it contains a "him" then you're looking at a "whom" use.
I tell people this and say, “Follow the M.”
It's pretty much a dead language feature anyway, at least in my area. Whom sounds pretentious as hell if you actually say it. Like, you'd get away about as well with thee or thou.
A slight tangent into spelling, but I think "milktoast" is perfectly evocative of the idea the user is trying to get across.
This is the only comment in this entire threat I agree with so far
"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"
To me, it sounds like an incomplete list. With the 'and X', I know that X is the last thing in that set. I guess that only really matters in cases where you want to absolutely show that a set only contains certain members.
An “and” before the last item tells you it’s an inclusive list. An “or” before the last item tells you it’s a pick one. A “nor” tells you it wasn’t any of those. It’s word to wait to the last item to know what the list was, but English is a screwed up language.
Yeah that makes sense. I'd still use "or" for listing options. Don't really see how omitting the "and" leads to ambiguity though.
You call yourself a grammar nazi, and don't use the oxford comma?
Grammar was invented by big keyboard to sell more keys, fuck grammar. I was taught not to use Oxford comma here in Aus. Though I guess I do technically use it I just omit the "and" that tags along
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.
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)
I don’t care if people say “chomping at the bit”, because it basically means the same thing as “champing at the bit”, and nobody uses the word champing anymore anyway.
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"
I work in a job with contractual language and care deeply about the placement of every comma in that context.
Outside that in everyday life, I don't care about any grammer rule so long as I can understand the writer's intent.
I used to get yelled at mid-sentence by a parent for incorrect grammar, and used to do the same to others as a result. I've mostly recovered. I still find imprecision irksome but, if everyone understands, I don't think it's a big deal.
I still think certain formal situations warrant proper grammar and spelling (from native speakers at least), such as a CV for a professional job.
Mooses and gooses
Moosen
Regularisation goes brrrr.
I really like when non-native speakers say persons.
Moos and goos
Moosepodes and goosepodes
Irregardless, for all intensive purposes your point is mute.
i'm not prescriptive with grammar. it is descriptive. so "common usage" is fine by me.
and there are even racist undertones to a lot of it. sometimes the word "ask" gets pronounced as "axe" which some people throw fits of hissy all over the place.
Chaucer, the grandfather of modern English, had no problem using the "axe" version. so i'm more down with common usage for speech but knowing the variety of rules and how they have been used historically is a fun exercise in linguistic study and discourse.
but its all good.
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
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.
While I might use them interchangeably, as a non-native I would think "need to" is supposed to mean that the situation came out of necessity, such as feeling the need to pee or resorting to selling your car because of an empty wallet, while "have to" is more like the result of some rules or discipline, such as showing up to work in time - but I understand that the line between the two can be rather blurry.
As for my thing: there are a few shortened words in my language (similarly to the English "hubby", "preggo", etc.) that got shortened according to pronunciation, and not the original (longer) word, having a different spelling at the start (as if "circle" got shortened to "circ", but spelled as "cirk"). It feels like a kid came up with the spelling, and now it's the official form. It's bugging my inner spelling nazi every time I see it.
Relatedly, it really bugs me out when I'm watching English-language media from outside North America and someone says "what are we meant to do" in a situation where I would say "what are we supposed to do". Like, a lot. Best I can figure, it implies to me a sort of outside intention driving one's actions, as opposed to the mere regard implied by "supposed", and my anti-authoritarian ass rankles at that.
Anyone else have feelings about this one?
Wow. Do you know the feeling when someone brings your attention to something that you had been ignoring pretty much all your life, and from that point it drives you mad every single time? Yeah, you have just done that with the meant to/supposed to thing. You're SO totally right! Aaaand you cursed me.
Most of it. I don't know how people find the energy to give a shit about grammar in informal settings. If I can understand the meaning it's good enough for me.
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.
Alright, which standards? Show your work or else I’m a call you a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I’ve started using “used to could” instead of “used to be able to”, and I will not stop.
outside of like academic settings, anything should go. check out the previous sentence where i inserted an unnecessary “like” as an example. it reflects my train of thought and i type as i think. same thing should go for slang and stuff, if the best way to get your point across is with ideas that have not been accepted by the academic world then that’s totally skibidi tubular, man.
I’m fine with “free reign” and “beckon call” because the meaning is retained and language evolves.
I feel like "free reign" means the same thing as "free rein" anyway. As in you're not shackled in your rule; a despot. "He has free reign over his domain."
I've recently come to the position that really, there isn't truly such a thing as incorrect grammar. There's grammar that doesn't fit the norm for the people one is speaking to, and if it's different enough to impair the ability for the intended audience to understand what you're communicating it can be impractical or inadvisable, but since grammar isn't an intrinsic part of the universe outside of human creation, and since the way it's used changes whenever people "break it's rules" in numbers over time, it can't actually be wrong. After all, someone could view something written in a very closely related foreign dialect as another similar language written correctly, or one's own language written incorrectly, and there isn't really a non-arbitrary way to decide which is the case.
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.
Grammar is literally just some made up notion
You literally wouldn't be able to write this without it...
I mean, what would be the altenative? Throw a bunch of relevant words in random order and hope that someone would understand?
I bet this one would convey anything but what you'd mean originally.
What I wrote is grammatically incorrect, there is no full stop. You understood what I meant with no ambiguity despite an incorrect use of grammar. I literally did write that without adhering to grammatical rules and it didn't impede either of our abilities to communicate.
Of course it is correct! Let me break it down for you.
Subject: Grammar
Verb: Be -> Is
Adverb: Literally, Just
Pronoun: Some
Adjective: Made-up
Object: Notion
The lack of full stop is indeed an error. But the structure of your sentence is still valid.
Yeah almost like in different contexts different grammar is appropriate exactly like the original comment said you evolutionary col-de-sac
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 couldn’t convey our meaning.
The other is saying that grammar, I think perhaps “proper grammar” is made up by humans, and so doesn’t 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.
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.
Nobody actually knows how to use "it begs the question" anyway. Even the ones who think they do.
… fine I’ll do it.
That begs the question, how is it used properly?
Haha. If you're interested.
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.
Some things work differently between dialects of English. For example "the band is" (it is) vs "the band are" (they are).
There are vague cases. A band could be a singular entity or a group of countable members, and whichever you use would come with a shading of connotation about that. "The band are all upset about this deal... The band isn't taking its roadies for granted."
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.
There are too many shit on this webpage.
I is agreeable.
Putting contracted words in the wrong places. Like ending a sentence with "you're".
Using "less" instead of "fewer".
Not getting spellings 100% accurate all the time.
Using the wrong version of 'your' or 'their'.
RAS syndrome.
MLB Baseball?
Compression of the sentence “are you going to be there” into “y’gon be de’” is better than most compression algorithms can do.
Anything logical...
Grammar is less rules that we have to follow and more a description of what people are using.
So when shit doesn't make sense, we should all just agree that's dumb and switch.
*defense