9 ms·
Mistakes about grammar mistakes
- jsulak 17y agoI wrote about this kind of thing a while back (about some different "rules'): http://www.wordsinboxes.com/2008/07/splitting-grammatical-hairs.html http://www.wordsinboxes.com/2008/07/splitting-grammatical-ha...
- jrockway 17y agoGood post. I think too many people think that the simplified English they learn in first grade is the same English they should use once they are adults. (I know first grade is where I heard "never begin a sentence with 'and' or 'but'", anyway. The other rules were introduced at a similar time. I ignored them then and my grades suffered as a result. But of course, now I get paid to write, and nobody tells me which words I can start a sentence with. LOL.)
- joe_the_user 17y agoI would say the "mistakes" you write about are also stylist errors. But at least here you can point to some pedants - as opposed to real writers - who would agree with you. Moreover, the pedants can point to some grammar-like rules to back this up. The new list of "grammar mistakes" being critiqued in the parent are both innovations in language control and don't have much syntax-like quality to them. The English teachers have most of these covered in other categories already. Still, one might see the list as effort by grammarians at a land grab in language-space similar to Apple's UI patenting land grab in information-space. Either way, it is wrong. The most atrocious pseudo-grammar rule I know is the absurd 'that' versus 'which' pseudo-distinction. This made-up piece of rule-fluff is common enough that I wasn't able to remove from my MS Word grammar checker. Losing that was perhaps the one good to come to me from switching to Open Office.
- russell 17y agoFrom thefreedictionary.com: "A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes." That sure sounds like what the original article was talking about. Some quibbles with Pullum's blog: than vs. then is not a spelling mistake. They are different words and the improper usage is a grammatical error as nearly everyone understands the meaning of grammar. "Less brains" vs. "fewer brains" is a stupid example. "Brains" means intelligence in that context. "Fewer intelligence" is silly. Now, some of the original rules are purely matters of taste. I use lots of commas, But if you use "i.e", when you should use "e.g." then you come come off as sloppy. The real problem with strict grammarians is that some of the rules were never normal usage (dont end a sentence with a preposition) and others fail to track the evolution of usage ("different from" vs. "different than").
- telemachos 17y agoThe real problem with strict grammarians is that some of the rules were never normal usage (dont end a sentence with a preposition) I would go even a bit further. The specific example you cite is a case where the rule not only doesn't follow normal usage for English, but derives from an entirely different language. The rule, like many others, comes from Latin usage. In English, as a Germanic language, it is not only common, but often correct and natural, to end a sentence with a preposition. There is a common tendency for adverb-verb groups in English to split and for the verb to move forward in the sentence as the preposition slides down to the end. As an example, think about how natural this sounds: I'll be right along after I finish writing this reply down. The rule was always complete crap. But it appealed to the sensibility of people who knew Latin and felt that applying its norms to English elevated them. It's a class thing, at some level, I suppose.
- sokoloff 17y agoI'll be right along after I finish writing this reply down It sounds not at all natural to me. Was it supposed to?
- telemachos 17y ago
- baddox 17y agoI would be interested to know the author's definition of grammar. He seems to be using the common yet vague definition of grammar, something along the lines of "the proper arrangement of words in a phrase or sentence." However, from a critical/academic standpoint I always thought grammar was more general. Wikipedia, m-w, and answers.com all allow for "grammar" encompassing essentially all structural rules of a language, including semantics, syntax, morphology, etc. Also, I specifically disagree with his number 3. I have never heard or seen "I can do that easy" in formal speech or prose. He seems to be arguing against grammar Nazism, which I can agree with, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly acceptable and understandable sentence may still be ungrammatical. "I can do that easy" is ungrammatical.
- RyanMcGreal 17y agoBear in mind that descriptive grammarians determine what is and is not grammatical based not on abstract principles of grammar, most of which originate in the prescriptive tradition of the 18th and 19th centuries, but on actual recorded use (i.e. in the same way that dictionaries determine the meanings of words). In other words, if there is a broad tradition of people saying and writing, "I can do that easy", it is de facto grammatically correct to do so.
- Nwallins 17y ago> if there is a broad tradition of people saying and writing, "I can do that easy" But is there? It sounds awful to my ears. Does this not just boil down to the distinction between prescriptive vs descriptive camps? I believe there is in fact a broad tradition of people saying "I be (going to the store)", but I would say that usage of "be" is incorrect. As well with "I'm gonna ..." or even "Ongonna ...". This type of language can certainly be used "correctly" in prose, to add color and flavor, but I would never expect to see it in a proper non-fiction context.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- 17y ago
- RyanMcGreal 17y agoThis was a fun read. Yet: > A guy who writes I could of been a contender can't spell, sure, he knows how to say grammatically that he could've been a contender (and who knows, perhaps in some realm other than writing he could've been). Is it just me, or is this sentence ungrammatical?
- epochwolf 17y agoIt's ungrammatical.
- jrockway 17y agoConversational grammar and written grammar are a little different; this sentence makes sense if you consider the author to be having a chat with you.
- RyanMcGreal 17y agoIf he put a period after "...can't spell" I'd agree with you: >A guy who writes I could of been a contender can't spell. Sure, he knows how to say grammatically that he could've been a contender (and who knows, perhaps in some realm other than writing he could've been). Conversational and grammatical.
- pvg 17y agoIt is. The error, though, is one of spelling.
- briansmith 17y agoI believe it is just a simple typo. He meant to have "but" before "he knows."
- RyanMcGreal 17y agoThat makes more sense.
- electromagnetic 17y agoAgreed, it sounds like he mistakenly let the 'but' go silent because of a comma, however when the comma is part of a parenthesis (the 'sure') this rule doesn't apply. He could have resolved it with any of the following: can't spell, sure. He knows can't spell, sure; he knows can't spell, sure, but he knows It requires that extra pause that the parenthesis removed. How he wrote it should read more akin to this: can't spell (sure) he knows A parenthesis can, usually, be removed without an effect on the readability of the sentence, as the 'usually' in this sentence can. However, his can't because the two ends around the parenthesis aren't contiguous. I'd let this pass to a simple case of writing fast and being unable to catch the error on a proof read (if he did one). I've worked as a writer, and I can say honestly that it's surprisingly easy to miss errors when you know exactly what you mean and hence why all good authors have good editors between their manuscript and the book you buy.
- RK 17y agoMaybe I only notice because my parents pounded the difference between less and fewer into my head when I was growing up, but... It seems like speakers of American English have simply forgotten that "fewer" exists.
- nollidge 17y agoIs that bad?
- nagrom 17y agoYes, it is bad. The distinction between less and fewer can aid interpretation of a sentence, especially in spoken language. Consider: "I have less chocolate" vs "I have fewer chocolates" In the first case, even if you don't hear the correct ending to the word chocolate, it is clear that you are talking about an amorphous mass of chocolate. In the second case, it is clear that you have distinct chocolates. Natural language works on multiple redundancy, expecting some wastage as the information is conveyed. Any common mistake that detracts from the precision with which you can express yourself is a bad thing.
- antipaganda 17y agoLess is analog, fewer is digital.
- lssndrdn 17y agoI always thought that the Strunk and White was about style - it's up to the reader to decide whether it's good advice or not - but to call it clueless is just wrong. My English improved a lot after reading that book.
- electromagnetic 17y agoStyle, frequently, should be personal and 'learning' it often betrays the original writers intent. However, you're right. Strunkn and White were writing, primarily, about style and in such it is more akin to a recipe book for writing rather than it is a dictionary for spelling. If the book helps you in one specific area that you yourself desired to change, then it's likely been beneficial. Having said that, Strunk and White's book is an abomination of self-contradiction. I can tell by your writing, albeit only a small snippet, that you don't follow their teachings religiously (as some do; IE the Grammar Nazi's - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing). You use your own style for parenthesise (dashes rather than commas), likely one you picked up and liked, and one the Elements of Style suggests is wrong (at least from as much as I've managed to read of the text).
- nazgulnarsil 17y agoLanguage isn't proper or improper, it is either precise or it isn't. it is precise when it effectively conveys the information that the originator intended to send. breaking grammatical rules can in certain circumstances assist with this. but the vast majority of the time improper grammar impedes understanding. the fact that this misunderstanding is often minor enough and the type of mistake common enough that the reader can figure out what you mean isn't a valid excuse.
- TNO 17y agohttp://www.chaosscenario.com/main/2010/01/when-can-a-comma-cost-you-2-million.html http://www.chaosscenario.com/main/2010/01/when-can-a-comma-c...
- raffi 17y agoThis blog post struck me as venemous link bait. Sad to see such a thing on the Language Log.