Grammar Gestapo
Oct. 28th, 2004 03:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naruki_oniI have learned from much painful experience not to be a total ass when someone shows a genuine inability to type correctly. But the occasional typo or grammar/spelling mistake is still fair game, when discussed amiably. And flagrant and unrepentant offenders deserve whatever crap they catch from me or others.
That said, here is a place to note things that tick you off, or at least make you go "Hmm..."
This post was inspired by the repeated misuse by one poster of "whom" where "who" would have been correct. I say that as one whom [sic] has occasionally been guilty of such mis-usage, but the glaring errors are painful to ignore. ;-)
That said, here is a place to note things that tick you off, or at least make you go "Hmm..."
This post was inspired by the repeated misuse by one poster of "whom" where "who" would have been correct. I say that as one whom [sic] has occasionally been guilty of such mis-usage, but the glaring errors are painful to ignore. ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 01:06 pm (UTC)*grin*
Date: 2004-10-28 01:26 pm (UTC)While I sometimes use "whom" correctly, I more often use "who" in its place, informally. But seeing "whom" incorrectly used in place of "who" just grates on my nerves.
I know that some people have made that assertion.
Date: 2004-10-28 01:18 pm (UTC)Still, "whom" is definitely correct in the proper circumstances.
The upshot being that you can misuse "who" in a sentence and few people will care. But misusing "whom" is too noticeable.
The ONE thing that consistently pisses me off...
Date: 2004-10-28 02:57 pm (UTC)One should know their shortcomings and not display them so readily. :)
Well... crap.
Date: 2004-10-28 03:01 pm (UTC)Points to the first person to find the error.
Re: Well... crap.
Date: 2004-10-28 07:07 pm (UTC)Possibly making it more clear to whom one is referring when referring to 'they'?
I don't consider either enough of an error to point them out in normal society, but when you issue a challenge...
Think number.
Date: 2004-10-28 07:35 pm (UTC)Still, for colloquial purposes I'd just ignore such a thing. I don't much agree with that particular rule.
Re: Think number.
Date: 2004-10-29 12:34 pm (UTC)I found a really interesting page about this use of "they."
http://www.indiana.edu/~lggender/grammar.html
Among its best points are examples of Jane Austen using the third-person singular "they." I will note, however, that the excerpts are all from spoken dialogue, and so Austen herself might have rejected "they" while realizing people did speak that way.
Also worth noting are sentences where they [sic] take the "gender-neutral" use of "he" to its absurd conclusions ("No person shall be forced to have an abortion against his will"). My favorite college composition instructor used a similar example to illustrate the silliness one could fall into by using "man" to refer to human. "Throughout history, man has experienced the pain of childbirth."
Although I have been convinced not to pick on people who use "they," I wince when I catch myself using it.
Resistance is few tile.
Date: 2004-10-29 01:09 pm (UTC)As I was taught, I've usually used the masculine singular "he" when gender was unknown. Formally, anyway.
In speech, I'd often use "they". When I'm feeling peckish, "it".
I think "one" is usually too stilted and often snobby, but on rare occasion fitting.
Still, the examples you gave are ones that clearly imply a gender. As such, I'd use the appropriate gender pronoun in those cases.
I think your instructor was trying too hard to prove a point and overlooked the reality. Did it have a better example? ;-)
Aw, come on. Give me something!
Date: 2004-10-29 01:49 pm (UTC)You're well come.
Date: 2004-10-29 01:29 pm (UTC)In my professor's case, at least, she was using humor to illustrate and reinforce a point. She wasn't really saying you can't use "he." I believe she was trying to show us that you can't use "he" as an all-purpose third-person singular.
I do tend to use "he," partly to piss off the gender wardens, but mostly because it's what sounds best to me. I think the claim that using "he" excludes women is hooey. I never felt excluded or slighted by the use of the masculine pronoun, and I don't like being told that I should.
I use "she" when called for. Mainly when discussing kitchenware and the gentle art of child-rearing.
So what you're saying is...
Date: 2004-10-29 01:56 pm (UTC)Er, I would need a plausible example to try to* get my mind around that one.
But I agree that "he" is not a good "all purpose" 3PS.
*My emphasis there had nothing to do with you. I've just been noticing a particular mistake a lot and felt like pointing out the correct usage. ;-)
I'll try and give a concrete (imaginary) example.
Date: 2004-10-29 03:56 pm (UTC)History 102
Western Civilization II
Peter Pratfaller
Exam #3
...
#6) You have five minutes to answer this essay question (10 points):
Describe the effect of the invention of anaethesia on the public's perception of medicine. Be specific.
Throughout history, men have suffered not only from disease and injury, but the accompanying pain and suffering. Hippocrates states a common view when he says, "Many a man has experienced grave illness, and yet he suffered not; his recovery is often faster and more thorough than that of a man who has not been seriously ill, but whose malady afflicted him with periods of agony." From this we can see that men have feared not just the physical state of ill health, but the subjective experience of painful sensations. Throughout history, men have experienced the agony of the burst buboes of the bubonic plague, the festering wounds of battle, the pain of childbirth.
[more & more BS...]
...
Now obviously, that's easy to fix; just change "men" to "humans" in the last sentence. My point was simply that it's possible to start off a paragraph or sentence talking about something gender neutral, which entitles you to use "men" or masculine pronouns, and then end up using one instance which would actually only apply to women. I think that's what my professor was trying to warn us from.
Ok, that's plausible.
Date: 2004-10-29 06:13 pm (UTC)Score!
Date: 2004-10-30 10:19 am (UTC)Hey!
Date: 2004-10-30 10:44 am (UTC)I haven't touched your petard!
Date: 2004-10-30 11:12 am (UTC)You really need a spelling post
Date: 2004-10-28 05:33 pm (UTC)The question is...
Date: 2004-10-28 06:12 pm (UTC)Re: The question is...
Date: 2004-10-28 06:25 pm (UTC)Re: The question is...
Date: 2004-10-28 10:07 pm (UTC)http://www.m-w.com
I've seen at least one book from a "reputable" publisher that contained this error.
It's not an error, though.
Date: 2004-10-29 10:22 am (UTC)Also, it listed that as a variant, thus supporting the validity of this alternative spelling.
Re: It's not an error, though.
Date: 2004-10-29 12:08 pm (UTC)If I was an editor or English teacher, I would still make students use "publicly," because it's less clunky.
I wouldn't.
Date: 2004-10-29 12:19 pm (UTC)As a teacher, I would make sure they knew "publicly" was the more commonly accepted spelling.
As an editor, I would assume the already knew that (because they are professionals).
In either case, I'd let them decide which they preferred and allow it as a personal style issue. If I want to see my preferences, I'll just write it myself.
Re: I wouldn't.
Date: 2004-10-29 12:42 pm (UTC)With some words you don't have a choice about altering the root--e.g. "philosophically" instead of "philosophicly"--but when you do, I think it's better to keep it simple.
Also, if I was editing a book of essays or a magazine, I would make the writers use consistent spellings. Otherwise, the product looks poorly edited.
Philosophical, philosophic
Date: 2004-10-29 12:45 pm (UTC)Ooh, not good.
Date: 2004-10-29 01:17 pm (UTC)You have a valid argument with the developmental validity of the alternate word (it was seemingly a deviation from the standard rule for forming adverbs). But that argument doesn't apply when the word is already an accepted form. You might as well complain that "gooder" should be a word.
Speaking of which...
Is validity binary?
Date: 2004-10-29 01:48 pm (UTC)Bartleby.com quotes the _Columbia Guide to Standard American English_ as follows: "Publicly is the usual spelling; publically does occur, but rarely in Edited English."
Also, "publicly" is the way we all pronounce the word. I've never heard anyone give it all four syllables. Stylistically, I think we all should aspire to write sentences that sound right when read aloud.
I don't think "validity" in word choice is a binary issue of, "Is it in the dictionary or not?" Words can be valid but still sound awkward. If I'm just proofreading, I am screening for dictionary correctness. If I'm editing, that's a higher level of criticism. I can say, "This is correct, but it sounds like crap." Only I'd be nicer about it.
No, but situations are distinct.
Date: 2004-10-29 02:10 pm (UTC)"Spelling", to my mind, begins and ends with forming the correct sequence of letters to create a word. If a given word has more than one correct sequence of letters, then the choice is a matter of personal style.
I'm not sure that 90% of the readers would agree with you, though you might possibly have a plurality. But plenty of good writers use plain old incorrect grammar or spelling consistently and haven't offended their readership yet. The main thing is to be consistent, I think.
We also say "typicly", so that argument gets defenestrated. ;-p
Basically, it comes down to you thinking there is something wrong with the word, despite the dictionary not supporting you. Thus, it is a matter of your personal style versus someone else's.
I don't think that my mislike of a particular word means that nobody should use it. Plenty of times I've found that I develop a tolerance, and sometimes even a liking, for a word or phrase that I initially disapproved of but see often in a good piece of writing.
The fact that this alternate spelling became acceptable only because it was frequently misspelled that way may be what's so jarring to you, and I must say I sympathize with the feeling. I'm still trying to get used to the idea that "It's me" is now a valid response when answering the phone.
Help, help, I'm being defenestrated!
Date: 2004-10-29 03:34 pm (UTC)I think a lot depends on how much authorial "style" is appropriate to a particular piece of writing. It would be too jarring if all the different reporters at, say, the New York Times adopted their own pet spellings of words and proper names.
I'm not sure that the choice between valid spellings is simply a matter of personal style. But on this point, I'm willing to admit that you may be right and I may be wrong; I'm just too lazy to keep hashing it out publically. *g*
Woo hoo!
Date: 2004-10-29 06:07 pm (UTC)Hey, who are you calling unqualified?
From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 12:28 am (UTC)Contractions are great... when used appropriately.
Date: 2004-10-29 10:30 pm (UTC)I was trying to finish that post as my friend was hustling out of her office, so the editing job was... lax. Sorry.
Routermg gives two good examples of one side of the there's/there're coin of misusage.
I though contractions just kind of happened.
Date: 2004-10-30 09:51 am (UTC)And two years later, the contradictions start.
Date: 2004-10-30 10:24 am (UTC)"There's" with plural nouns sucks too
Date: 2004-10-29 04:02 pm (UTC)"There's three great reasons to buy now!"
&c.
Blegh.
One would surely suppose
Date: 2004-10-31 03:54 am (UTC)Not so! I came across this gem in a review of Audrey Hepburn, An Elegant Spirit: "In the era of Hollywood icons, no star shined brighter than Audrey Hepburn."
OK, rant of my own.
Date: 2004-11-03 06:42 am (UTC)Ich get it nicht
Date: 2004-11-03 01:44 pm (UTC)Re: Ich get it nicht
Date: 2004-11-03 11:57 pm (UTC)Gut! Danke.
Date: 2004-11-06 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 06:42 pm (UTC)Anyways I also find leet speak just hard to read. Oh and people that write all in caps.
Absolutely.
Date: 2004-11-12 06:49 pm (UTC)Sorry, Mom, but you had it coming! ;-p
I'm sorry...
Date: 2004-11-17 12:19 pm (UTC)My apologies
Date: 2004-11-17 04:18 pm (UTC)I used a leet-speak "translator" and then cleaned it up a little (substituting "ur" for "your," etc.) It was on the order of making an intentional "speeling misteak" when commenting on spelling. I only know the most common words of 1337.
I know.
Date: 2004-11-17 05:01 pm (UTC)But I just couldn't bear to leave it in place, joke though it was. :-)