Argh! There's for there are, while better than they's, is really annoying to me...
Let's have more non-gay-marriage-debate, pet peeve rants on grammar!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Lets dont.
Hobbes Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Fo' Shizzle.
-Bok
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
You apparently had the same first reaction to that thread title as I had.
There's = There is != There are
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
It's good to have you back, David.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
After frantically mentally reveiwing my posts... I think I only use there's as "there is".
I hope.
As a question to the grammer naz - I mean, experts...
How about 'novels' - as in, "my novels aim is...". I think there should be an apostrophe between the l and the s... ?
[ February 24, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You mean like "the aim of my novel"? Then yes, you need an apostrophe before the s to make it possessive.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:After frantically mentally reveiwing my posts... I think I only use there's as "there is".
I hope.
As a question to the grammer naz - I mean, experts...
How about 'novels' - as in, "my novels aim is...". I think there should be an apostrophe between the l and the s... ?
novels = more than one novel
To say what you want to say, I would probably re-word the sentence to something like (even though, yes, I know it's in "passive voice"): "The aim of this novel is to...." because "My novel's aim is..." seems really weird to me.
[ February 24, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
And that's "grammar," not "grammer."
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
This ain't no spellin' thread.
(And I hope that made you squirm in your grammars)
[ February 24, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Let me ask you a couple of friendly questions, Imogen. I'm not trying to be a prick or anything, so be cool.
Just to let you know, I'm an English teacher at a charter school in Texas, head of our Language Arts department. I'm working on my doctorate in Educational Leadership. I love literature and grammar, but also I've an affection for science, history, music, statistics, and many other fields.
So here it goes. First, how old are you? Did you study the mechanics and grammar of English at any point in your schooling?
Here's why I ask: to me, knowing that singular nouns, when made possessive, take 's is as essential a piece of knowledge for an American as that 3*3=9. It's just the basic stuff you ought to know. And when I hear people bellyache about being corrected, I have little compassion for them.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
The greatest pet peeve for me, while perhaps not grammatical is still linguistic so I'll put it here.
I could care less.
Why do people say that? It makes no sense whatsoever. What- you could care less but just can't be bothered to put forth the effort? What does that mean?
Repeat after me: I couldn't care less.
Thank you.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
His profile says he's an Australian law student. But I don't think it's very absurd not to know how to form the possessive. I still have to think about how to spell "piece" or "receive," and mostly I do it by seeing if it looks right, not by plugging in some memorized formula for doing it. If it's been awhile since I've actually had to spell out the word, it might take me a few tries.
I could care more.
[ February 24, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
David,
I appreciate your point. When I first came to the forum I also was sometimes appalled by the grammar.
However, after typing a 1000 posts, and making many spelling and grammatical errors myself (even though I was originally an English major), and realized that here it is content, more than mechanics, which is important.
Many of us are typing so fast and have our head whirling with so many thoughts on any given subject, that we don't worry about grammar in the heat of the moment. (Beside the fact that I often type while also answering the phone, and doing several other things at the same time here at work).
Farmgirl
[ February 24, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Jehovoid, the "i before e" syndrome is utterly different from not knowing that POSSESSIVES, something 98% of all nouns can become, ARE FORMED BY ADDING AN APOSTROPHE AND AN S (unless plural and ending in "s," in which case you slap an apostrophe on after the s).
Law students, considering all the writing they'll be doing, really ought to know this basic rule.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Farmgirl, he asked whether or not to put 's! It wasn't a typo... the guy didn't know!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Guess I should fully read the thread first, huh?
Farmgirl
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the word forwards. You should find a better pet peeve.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
I'm just trying to say that sometimes things look funny to you and you can have a moment of doubt. Language, being for the most part an arbitrary combination of sounds or characters, is particularly susceptible to these mental slip ups. I don't think that the 's rule is the same as 2+2=4, in that it doesn't follow logically. Is it drilled into your head from an early age? Yes. Can you forget it from time to time? Sure.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
I have a grammar question that has been a continuing argument between my coworkers and I since Christmas. Hopefully you can finally settle the argument.
We make photo Christmas cards. Most customers request to have something like "From the <family name>" on their cards.
Every year, my coworkers insist on typing it as, say, "From The Smith's" and every year I argue that there should be no apostrophe.
Who is right? Also, what is this proper way to do this if the name ends in S?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
"From the Smiths."
"From the Joneses."
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
Thanks, Jon. Though I imagine telling them once again will do no good, at least now I know I'm correct.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the confusion was less about how to form a possessive and more about whether a possessive is appropriate in that situation.
I see a lot of confusion about whether or not a given situation requires a possessive, and I think it's a conceptual logic issue not a grammar issue. In this case, the novel doesn't own the "aim" in the common sense, so people aren't sure that possessive is appropriate.
Whether or not that was the root cause if the problem, I'm still annoyed when people don't know that gerunds take the possessive form of nouns before them.
"The man was offended by my damning the river."
Dagonee
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Maybe they mean, "from the Smith's (house/ family)." In this way, there is one person who refers to himself or herself as "the Smith," and then that person has a family or household on behalf of which he or she is sending the Christmas card.
This could be a fun and humorous way to explain to your co-workers their grammatical error, or they could just construe this as your being a facetious ass.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Not always, Dagonee. Possessive or object forms are acceptable. It really depends on what you're trying to emphasize. Also, there are lots of pronouns that don't decline to the genitive case.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I'm similarly annoyed by their not grasping that rule.
Heh.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
David,
I (female) am an Australian law student.
I am 21.
I have been schooled in grammar.
I have completed a physics degree.
I am currently completing my law honours.
I spell grammar as grammer quite often. I also mix up my 'ie's. They are just my idiosyncrasies.
I have a *big* problem with the misuse of apostrophes. I hate it when people write "french frie's" or similar. I even point it out on long car rides. It drives other people nuts.
The reason I asked is because of my partner. He is 31. He has been an English teacher for 8 years. He is now a full time author. He has 3 books on the market, 2 books to be released in the next 4 months.
He is currently doing his PhD in creative writing. His latest novel is a subject of that PhD. We had a 'discussion' about the use of the apostrophe in his PhD proposal.
It turns out, I was right. But in terms of grammar wars, I am not often right when it comes to fighting Tony. So I wanted to check.
So, yes, I did get 'uncool'. Sorry.
But I am educated. I know about the possessive. I just wanted to check...
[ February 24, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Jon, objective forms are possible in some cases for emphasis, but not always.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Good point, Dag. Like maybe he was thinking, "It's my aim in the novel..." but he said "novel's aim," and this didn't make sense to him. But still, you've got the "s" on the end of "novel" and he doesn't mean plural, so what else could he possibly be thinking but the possessive form of "novel?"
(edit after reading imogen's post)
Oh well. Fun discussion anyway.
[ February 24, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Imogen, cool. Nice to make your acquaintance, btw.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Jon, objective forms are possible in some cases for emphasis, but not always.
Right. The possessive often works better, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule. In fact, it's not really a rule at all. As long as that construction has existed in English, both forms have been acceptable.
[ February 24, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
You too David. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Which is correct:
My ear tells me I should put a comma here, although the grammar book says I shouldn't.
My ear tells me I should put a comma here although the grammar book says I shouldn't.
To me, the first sentence sounds more correct. That's how I'd speak the sentence. But the second sentence is actually correct according to current grammar rules.
How closely should I follow little rules like that when I don't agree with them? This rule is pretty much an outgrowth of some "higher" laws of sentence punctuation--almost forced by logic to exist. A product of some mechanical evolution. I prefer to think of grammar rules as not being completely subject to logic all of the time.
I break rules when I feel I need to. But only some of them, and only when I need to. Just like anything else, first you have to learn and to some extent naturalize the rules of grammar. Then you know when you can safely bend or break them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not always, Dagonee. Possessive or object forms are acceptable. It really depends on what you're trying to emphasize.
Correct. I should have said that the gerund can take the possessive. I got this corrected so many times in college when I used it correctly - it really annoyed me.
quote:Also, there are lots of pronouns that don't decline to the genitive case.
True.
Dagonee
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I always get tripped up by stuff like that, afr. The question is whether it's restrictive or non-restrictive. If the dependent clause is essential to the meaning of the main clause, don't use a comma. If it's merely additional information, use a comma. So now it's up to you to decide what it really is.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Restrictive and non-restrictive don't apply to adverb clauses, Jon, as they are by definition always non-restrictive (non-essential, removable, for those of you who aren't following this). Adverb clauses, as a result, follow a different punctuation protocol: those in sentence-initial position are followed by a comma, while those at the end of a sentence are not set off from the rest of that independent clause.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Restrictive and non-restrictive don't apply to adverb clauses, Jon, as they are by definition always non-restrictive.
What? Since when? The newest edition of Chicago has a section covering restrictive and non-restrictive adverb clauses.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The Advanced Editing class that I am taking has brought me to the limits of my own command of grammar and forced me to recognize rules I haven't been following. Now I have to accept them or be a heretic and declare that they don't matter.
Seriously, when I mangle a rule, it's usually something only an editor can catch. I think at some point the rules of grammar get too grainy. Do I really need to follow every single rule all the time? No. Style manuals try to freeze them in place. But we seem to forget that the rules are always in flux, evolving in a very organic fashion.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Fascinating, Jon. So, like, what's an example of a restrictive adverb clause they give?
:willing to learn:
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'll just quote the section. It's fairly short.
quote:Comma following main clause. A dependent clause that follows a main clause should not be preceded by a comma if it is restrictive, that is, essential to the meaning of the main clause. If it is merely supplementary or parenthetical, it should be preceded by a comma. (Note that the distinction is occasionally tenuous; if in doubt, use a comma to indicate a pause.)
We will agree to your proposal if you accept the conditions. Paul was astonished when he heard the terms. He didn't run because he was afraid; he ran because it had started to rain. but She ought to be promoted, if you want my opinion. At last she arrived, when the food was cold. He didn't run, because he was afraid to move. Chicago 6.36
I don't know if this helps. This has always been a weak point for me.
[ February 24, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
But look at their examples, and invert the order. MLA would argue that Chicago is trying to find a rationalization for an aesthetic rule:
We will agree to your proposal if you accept the conditions. If you accept the conditions, we will agree to your proposal.
Paul was astonished when he heard the terms. When he heard the terms, Paul was astonished
I think Chicago's a bit mixed up here. I'll refer to MLA and other authorities when I get home and then chime in again on this.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:(Note that the distinction is occasionally tenuous; if in doubt, use a comma to indicate a pause.)
*High-fives Chicago*
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Heh. It's their way of saying, "Okay, guys, there really isn't any logical way of explaining comma use when adverb clauses appear at the end of sentence. You're on your own."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yup. Which backs up my argument nicely. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yeah, pretty much. I always have the darnedest time saying, "Is this clause restrictive?" In a few of those cases, you can see the difference (like with a negative followed by because), but it seems that most of them don't fall neatly into the restrictive/non-restrictive categories.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Does it count for anything that I realized almost immediately why my thread was dobied?
To all grammar nazis, I beg your forgiveness.
And now I will defend myself.
I knew I was wrong, and I thought about correcting it, but honestly, had I said it out loud, that's exactly as I would have said it. I am much more grammatically adept than I let on. Sometimes I just like to let the atrocious language of my upbringing come out.
I should have known better than to do it here.
For reference, the possessive issue is also a pet peeve of mine. Spelling, also. If I could spell for a living, I'd never go hungry. I just choose to let most mistakes go because a) I am largely non-confrontational and b) as long as the meaning is clear, I'm not too worried. I'm much better at spelling than typing, and everyone makes a few mistakes here and there.
Plus, there are enough violent grammarians on this forum.
*sits back and waits for the grammar nazis to strike*
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I've rarely heard anyone damn a river, btw. "'Damn you, Mississippi!' cried the fisherman as he watched his life savings go careening away on an early spring flood." I suppose that could happen. But something tells me you meant "damming" a river instead. I mention it only because this is the thread meant for pedantic corrections.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
aka,
That was an intentional pun. Damming a river might make you mad, but damning river offends.
I'm glad someone noticed it, at least.
Dagonee
Posted by Mama Pimp (Member # 3485) on :
Crazy-ass crackers... spend a week on the muhfun streets, see if yall feel like dissecting yall's dumb-ass grammeratical shit.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
One of the things that messes me up time and time again is the difference between "effect" and "affect". I can't count the number of times I've had to look one or the other up in the dictionary. I need some sort of rhyme...
Edit: AND I should (apparently) pay more attention to what I'm typing.
[ February 25, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:5812
posted February 24, 2004 04:47 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does it count for anything that I realized almost immediately why my thread was dobied?
To all grammar nazis, I beg your forgiveness.
And now I will defend myself.
I knew I was wrong, and I thought about correcting it, but honestly, had I said it out loud, that's exactly as I would have said it. I am much more grammatically adept than I let on. Sometimes I just like to let the atrocious language of my upbringing come out.
I should have known better than to do it here.
For reference, the possessive issue is also a pet peeve of mine. Spelling, also. If I could spell for a living, I'd never go hungry. I just choose to let most mistakes go because a) I am largely non-confrontational and b) as long as the meaning is clear, I'm not too worried. I'm much better at spelling than typing, and everyone makes a few mistakes here and there.
Plus, there are enough violent grammarians on this forum.
*sits back and waits for the grammar nazis to strike*
If you cold hold back on the defensiveness for a minute, I'm sure you would realize that the only purpose of this thread is to point out a humorous irony (i.e. a grammatical error in the subject of a thread about grammar), not some kind of personal attack.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
Could someone explain media vs. medium to me? Is medium ever plural or media ever singular? If one of the definitions for medium is "An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred" are two of those agencies referred to as media or mediums?
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
1. Yes. 2. Medium is singular. Media is always plural. 3. It depends on what is being conveyed. Channels or systems of communication, broadcasting, artistic expression, information storage, etc. are media. People who are held to be channels of communication between the earthly and spirit world are mediums. Substances regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect can be either.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Medium is always singular. Media is often plural, but also often singular, especially when referring to "the media." Sometimes medium is pluralized as mediums, especially when referring to art: "My favorite mediums are oil paint and colored pencil."
Does that help?
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Actually, in reference to agencies of mass communications "media" is used as a mass noun often construed as singular.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)