 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proud member of the grammar nerd herd here...The emails from said co-worker are equally as painful. Singular pronouns and plural verbs are rampant. 
Not quite enough of a nerd, apparently, to grasp that "equally as" is unambiguously redundant. Say "emails from said co-worker are equally painful," or "are as painful," but not both.
Sorry - we'll never see eye to eye on that particular point. Split infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions or starting them with conjunctions, no problem as long as it's elegant and clear. But some things are just wrong - using "however" as a conjunction, for example (it's an adverb, apparently). And using "less" when it should be "fewer".
Personally, I find "less" to be an ugly word, like "got". "Fewer" has a gentle zephyr-like quality, and what's more, it's the mot juste.
Rule of thumb: if it deals with items that can be counted in whole units, like grains of sand, it's "fewer"; if its general quantity, like a beach full of sand, it's "less."
And just don't begin a sentence or clause with "however" ("However, I think I'm going to have to overrule you"). One should learn to use it, and think of it, as an afterthought: "I'm going to have to overrule you, however."
There is a kind of danger in looking for "pretty" words, however. It may be that many people confuse the proper use of "I," "he," "she," and "we" with those for "me," "him," "her" and "us" (and, to a somewhat less egregious extent, "me" versus "myself" because they think the first four are more highfalutin' ways of saying the latter four, leading to wince-inducing locutions like "We had enough cake for both he and I," which one tends to hear from some of most educated of mouths. They are, of course, different parts of speech whose uses are mandated by centuries of convention.
The old adage is that writing is re-writing. If only more people would understand that once one has written something, and most of the hard work is done, the fine-tuning of what one has written -- the winkling out of errors, redundancies and crudities -- is actually easy and pleasurable.
Writing is also like music or, obviously, the writing of music (this is a message board devoted to that art, of course), and everything that one writes really needs to have a beginning, a middle and an end. There are few things more satisfying in a well-crafted composition (verbal or musical) as finding that coda for the end that quotes and recalls that with which one's thought began.
Lastly, Mark Twain's advice was best (when isn't it?): "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between the lightning...and the lightning bug."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 2, 2014 - 9:26 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
edwzoomom
(Member)
|
Proud member of the grammar nerd herd here...The emails from said co-worker are equally as painful. Singular pronouns and plural verbs are rampant.
Not quite enough of a nerd, apparently, to grasp that "equally as" is unambiguously redundant. Say "emails from said co-worker are equally painful," or "are as painful," but not both.
Sorry - we'll never see eye to eye on that particular point. Split infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions or starting them with conjunctions, no problem as long as it's elegant and clear. But some things are just wrong - using "however" as a conjunction, for example (it's an adverb, apparently). And using "less" when it should be "fewer".
Personally, I find "less" to be an ugly word, like "got". "Fewer" has a gentle zephyr-like quality, and what's more, it's the mot juste.
Rule of thumb: if it deals with items that can be counted in whole units, like grains of sand, it's "fewer"; if its general quantity, like a beach full of sand, it's "less."
And just don't begin a sentence or clause with "however" ("However, I think I'm going to have to overrule you"). One should learn to use it, and think of it, as an afterthought: "I'm going to have to overrule you, however."
There is a kind of danger in looking for "pretty" words, however. It may be that many people confuse the proper use of "I," "he," "she," and "we" with those for "me," "him," "her" and "us" (and, to a somewhat less egregious extent, "me" versus "myself" because they think the first four are more highfalutin' ways of saying the latter four, leading to wince-inducing locutions like "We had enough cake for both he and I," which one tends to hear from some of most educated of mouths. They are, of course, different parts of speech whose uses are mandated by centuries of convention.
The old adage is that writing is re-writing. If only more people would understand that once one has written something, and most of the hard work is done, the fine-tuning of what one has written -- the winkling out of errors, redundancies and crudities -- is actually easy and pleasurable.
Writing is also like music or, obviously, the writing of music (this is a message board devoted to that art, of course), and everything that one writes really needs to have a beginning, a middle and an end. There are few things more satisfying in a well-crafted composition (verbal or musical) as finding that coda for the end that quotes and recalls that with which one's thought began.
Lastly, Mark Twain's advice was best (when isn't it?): "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between the lightning...and the lightning bug."
Your first day here and you are going after someone already? Gee, I may not be nerd enough for you but you are not nice enough for me. People who use their knowledge to beat other people over the head and "attempt" to show them up are a bore. Not impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I correct my own mistakes if I catch them, but don't comments on those of others. especially not on a forum such as this, which has many nationalities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2014 - 3:24 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
I correct my own mistakes if I catch them, but don't comments on those of others. especially not on a forum such as this, which has many nationalities.
Absolutely right, Stefancos - this discussion is an interesting one, but not to be applied here, amongst many non-native English speakers, who generally are brilliant in making themselves understood. Certainly much better than I could in any other language.
One the other hand (much easier just to have said "But"  ) - this site is for fun, where such standards don't signify. Part of my job involves writing to and about lawyers. Any readers of the Law Society Gazette may have seen an article wot I writ a couple of issues ago. I also vet what others write, in order to establish sense, clarity and compliance with the UK's Financial Conduct Authority financial promotions requirements. Then all this becomes very important indeed. If I allow standards to slip, business suffers. As would my income and lifestyle.
TG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2014 - 3:34 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
Rule of thumb: if it deals with items that can be counted in whole units, like grains of sand, it's "fewer"; if its general quantity, like a beach full of sand, it's "less."
Welcome to the board, Messrs Strunk and White. There are two of you and one of me. I'd say that makes it about even
Unfortunately, I have to unmask you as imposters. First, you've been dead, on average, for almost 50 years. Second, the real Strunk and White would surely, between them, have spotted the missing apostrophe in "if its general quantity".
Rule of thumb: don't fuck with the Tall Guy.
(Thanks for the opportunity, by the way - I always wanted to sign off a post that way)
And stick around - all the above is a bit of fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I can remember about the rules of grammar from school (way back in the days of Spangles & the ice-cold Jubbly), is you never start a sentence with, And, But or So, & then I started reading novels (& good ones), & authors do it all the time. So, as long as it reads OK it's fine with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2014 - 7:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
edwzoomom
(Member)
|
Rule of thumb: if it deals with items that can be counted in whole units, like grains of sand, it's "fewer"; if its general quantity, like a beach full of sand, it's "less."
Welcome to the board, Messrs Strunk and White. There are two of you and one of me. I'd say that makes it about even
Unfortunately, I have to unmask you as imposters. First, you've been dead, on average, for almost 50 years. Second, the real Strunk and White would surely, between them, have spotted the missing apostrophe in "if its general quantity".
Rule of thumb: don't fuck with the Tall Guy.
(Thanks for the opportunity, by the way - I always wanted to sign off a post that way)
And stick around - all the above is a bit of fun.
Or maybe don't #$@% with the diminutive dame? Feel free to scrutinize my "phrase".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One is overwhelmed, isn't one, by the duo's erudition? One simply has nothing to add. One could try, but one might fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To those still concerned, I am aware of the provocative comment posted by Dan the Man (now deleted) and I am looking into it. I did receive your reports and am handling it behind the scenes. Thank you.
DSS
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, when you post here (or any site), you don't just want to give an opinion, you want something of you in the post, how you speak, your style. And that might not always go hand in hand with "proper" grammar. Read some good books & the authors are throwing away the rules all the time. Elegant solutions are what's required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2014 - 3:17 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Regie
(Member)
|
Heard part of an interview on (state-run) NPR and how poor most folks’ grammar skills are these days. Going thru school in the 60s & 70s, proper grammar was practically beaten into you. . . . Is grammar taught in school now? Does it matter? . . . Never end a sentence with a preposition.”
One problem is that some well-meaning but ignorant teachers keep passing on silly shibboleths instead of real sensitivity to language. The one quoted above is a classic bit of nonsense. Good writers have always ended sentences with prepositions. The "rule" against doing this has been passed down for centuries by people who were unknowingly taking their cue from Classical (Greek and Latin) grammar. But English has its own grammar, and good English writers can be counted on to know better. Some examples:
Thou hast no speculation in those eyes / Which thou dost glare with. (Shakespeare)
Fanny could with difficulty give the smile that was asked for. (Austen)
The university is one most people have heard of. (Frost)
He had enough money to settle down on. (Joyce)
. . . the race of men she's had to deal with. (Doctorow)
Another good writer, Winston Churchill, should have hammered the final nail into this myth's coffin years ago. But like Dracula, the notion seems to belong to the undead.
This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put. (Churchill)
What you say here is quite right, Rozaphile. HOWEVER, the rule about NOT putting a preposition at the end of a sentence relates to SIMPLE sentences and those you've quoted above are certainly not SIMPLE SENTENCES. My following examples are of REDUNDANT prepositions in SIMPLE sentences. As with many grammatical 'rules', they are only incompletely explained:
"I haven't done nuthin' but" is one I heard regularly when I was teaching;
"Where do you live at?" is regularly heard on "Cops" re-runs (when the 'at' here is redundant and the 'but' is also redundant').
"Serve the dinner up" (another redundant preposition)
Sometimes it's very awkward framing a sentence IN SPEAKING so that the preposition does not fall at the end - these can become contorted and the sentences 'emasculated'.
The animadversions about correct and incorrect grammar over the years have largely fallen on deaf ears for this generation of sms-junkies. I was an English teacher and retired 7 years ago; the students not only DID NOT KNOW how to punctuate, they used sms 'language' in their texts. Regarding punctuation; if you want a student to find where to put a full stop, try asking them to read their work aloud where they are NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE A BREATH until they find where they've put a full stop. That soon gives them the message.
Many teachers today are simply not qualified to teach more than basic 'functional' grammar. This is not conducive to the development of a beautiful language (and I speak here mostly of written English). And this should not be confused with simple 'typos'!!
When I went to school in the 1960s grammar was inculcated into us and regular parsing of sentences was every bit as challenging as mathematics problems. I still get Christmas cards from friends from those years who still have far greater control of grammar (many of them did not go as far as matriculation) than most young people today, even those in very high level English courses. Bright kids - very bright - intrinsically knew because they were readers; the rest were flummoxed and needed help. But, where to start....?
Like much else in society today, rules have been gradually eroded or watered down - grammar is just another casualty. As I used to tell my students, "the people who know how to read, write and think will be running things".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2014 - 5:44 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ralph
(Member)
|
Like much else in society today, rules have been gradually eroded or watered down - grammar is just another casualty. As I used to tell my students, "the people who know how to read, write and think will be running things".
When thinking about what’s happening in Congress and in our state legislatures, I’m not so sure that the people “running things” are reading or writing or thinking much. Hearing them speak makes me even more leery about our future.
As for the disciplined art of grammar, some of us remember the terror felt when Sister What’sHerFace called on us to diagram a complicated sentence on the blackboard. Acting with glee the role of drill sergeant she commanded us to identify the myriad of rules. Who could remember all the definitions and fixes during showtime? One day I challenged the necessity of it and got my knuckles swacked with a yard stick. I’d later find a grammar book hidden away in a school storage cabinet and decided to put one of its tougher test sentences on the board and for fun “requested” Sister WHF identify components and correct errors. When she hesitated on something and I needled, “Are you sure, Sister?” and the class started laughing, her glare of “How dare you!” turned into smiling concession. She response was close to this: “Okay, you made your point. Now I want to know where you got what you don’t know anything about.” A lock appeared on the cabinet the next day.
Think we all agree with Joan’s concern that texting is impacting discourse. It’s not just the kids who are having trouble writing clearly or endangering spelling. (Their new Gregg slop is showing up in essays across the country.) My favorite Washington writer Elizabeth Drew (NYRoB) sometimes tweets sentences that are incomprehensible within Twitter’s 140 character limit. These coming from one of the best practitioners of the English language! Mastering a new tool takes a while, and it’s easy to muck up with typos if you have less than good vision, but if you’ve been a stickler for the perfect form all of your professional life, why settle now for push button sloppiness? Self-editing never goes out of fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2014 - 6:02 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Regie
(Member)
|
Some great comments there, Ralph. You were obviously a 'holy terror' in school and I would have probably laughed rather than locked the cabinet as Sister did.
When I ran 'grammar' exercises prior to teaching the prescribed English texts in Year 11 (penultimate year before matriculation), the student who enjoyed the exercise the most was an accelerated mathematics student who was a year ahead in that subject; he enjoyed problem-solving, and issues of grammar are about problem-solving, just as harmonic exercises in music - and just as enjoyable (seriously!). Where he had problems was with most advanced English analytical concepts; metaphor, irony, parody/satire, ambiguity, allegory, synecdoche etc. The older style of English used by Jane Austen - and her very formal sentence structures - quite defeated him!! Grammar was the easier way around the English language yet it was not a mandated part of the syllabus - just something I slipped in myself to test their level of knowledge about how the language works. It was sobering to put long, complex sentences up on the board and ask them to punctuate them, explaining why they had done it this way. Nobody uses colons or semi-colons these days, but I've always used them to add weight, length and complexity to sentences. These days a sentence doesn't require a verb; this would have been a stoning offense in the 1960s!! I do it myself now, as it's the only way to avoid semi-colons. And it works, actually. I'll go further. It's poetic. Very often.
I still maintain, despite what you've said about Congress, that the folks who know how to use language are running things - for it is certain one needs to be able for form a coherent sentence when in politics; certainly to UNDERSTAND these.
Great discussion to have!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
