5 ms·

It’s also grammatically incorrect. Edit: As I stand massively downvoted at this point in time despite my comment being entirely factually correct, I invite any

It’s also grammatically incorrect. Edit: As I stand massively downvoted at this point in time despite my comment being entirely factually correct, I invite any potential downvoter to consider the sentence “Give me apple” before reaching for the button.

DonHopkins 1y ago
That's factually incorrect, which is worse. Imperative mood: subject you is implied, so no need to write it. https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/imperative_mood.htm https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/imperative_mood.htm Zero article/bare noun phrase: allows omission of your, the, etc. in fixed instructions. https://www.thoughtco.com/zero-article-grammar-1692619 https://www.thoughtco.com/zero-article-grammar-1692619 Standard negation: "don’t" is the grammatical way to negate an imperative. https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/imperative-mood https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/imperative-mood
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Sadly that is factually correct and none of the links in your reply actually supports your point. The rule about the zero article doesn't list the case of a noun after an imperative. The first link is about the subject, not the object and the third is about negative imperative. Why are you posting links about completely unrelated things? Once again, using a noun without an article this way is gramaticaly incorrect.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    "Share profile photo" would be grammatically incorrect as a complete sentence. But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label. English has different grammar rules in different contexts. For example, newspaper headlines omit articles all the time. That doesn't make the NYT grammatically incorrect on every page, though. Because they're using correct headline grammar, which is different from sentence grammar.
    - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
      > But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label. Agree to disagree. The reason it sounds robotic is because it's grammaticaly incorrect. The article is not optional before the object in this sentence.
      - card_zero 1y ago
        How about these commands: Raise anchor, fix bayonets, hands up I think I'm with crazygringo on this one, there's special command grammar.
        Thorrez 1y ago
        The 2nd and 3rd examples are plural. You don't need an article for plural nouns. "Fix bayonets." and "Fix the bayonet." are standard grammar. "Fix bayonet." isn't.
        card_zero 1y ago
        Well, hands up is lacking a verb, and fix bayonets is in a funny passive tense - or something - because it seems to say "generally go around looking for bayonets to fix", but means specifically "fix your bayonets". In fact hands up is like that too, the intent is "put your hands up", not just "put hands up" in the abstract. Then there's informational signs, too. Wet floor is not an instruction. Labels generally aren't sentences. Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.
        StopDisinfo910 1y ago
        > Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use. I have never seen this. I have seen plenty of "Please close the gate" or "Keep the gate closed". Sometimes, the article is eluded when the noun is subject "Gate must be kept closed" but imperative + noun without an article on a sign seem highly unusual to me. It feels weird so I would definitely notice. I have seen "ring bell for assistance" however. It's jarring everytime. I must be the strange one.
danaris 1y ago
Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts. The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium. This form of imperative clause does have clear and consistent rules, whether you like them or not. And just stating that your opinion is factually correct, when it is plainly not, reeeeeally doesn't help your cause.
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  > The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium. Definitely no, "Give apple" is baby talk. Completely unacceptable in a choice. That's not proper English. I will die on that hill. I'm actually shocked by the amount of people here who thinks it's acceptable and fine. > Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts. The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition. It's entirely analogous to what I wrote. Are you confused by the "me" in my sentence. "Me" is an indirect object here. We basically have the same sentence. It just became entirely obvious that omitting the article is erroneous as soon as you had an indirect object. It's equally erroneous without it but apparently people have somehow convinced themselves it is acceptable after years of misuse in poor computer interfaces.
  - danaris 1y ago
    Would you like to give them the apple or the pear? ] Give Apple ] Give Pear Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options? > The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition My apologies, you're correct. I mistyped—I should have said "indirect object". That does not negate any of the rest of what I said.
    - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
      > Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options? Yes, I do. That’s Sierra-like poorly phrased English to save characters in a constrained support. Completely incorrect in any context, inacceptable when you don’t have to save bits. It’s only somewhat understandable because the zero article is used with proper name. Actually I find it interesting that you found the need to capitalise.
d1sxeyes 1y ago
Telegraphic style is not grammatically incorrect, it’s a feature of instructional English. Consider “insert nut into bolt”, “slice onion thinly”, or “sprinkle vinegar over chips”. I agree that your counter example does not work, but that’s due to the ambiguity introduced by having both an indirect and direct object. In a list of short instructions, “give apple to me” would not be ungrammatical.
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  obviously you insert bolts into nuts, not the other way round.

DonHopkins 1y ago

That's factually incorrect, which is worse. Imperative mood: subject you is implied, so no need to write it. https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/imperative_mood.htm https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/imperative_mood.htm Zero article/bare noun phrase: allows omission of your, the, etc. in fixed instructions. https://www.thoughtco.com/zero-article-grammar-1692619 https://www.thoughtco.com/zero-article-grammar-1692619 Standard negation: "don’t" is the grammatical way to negate an imperative. https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/imperative-mood https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/imperative-mood

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
Sadly that is factually correct and none of the links in your reply actually supports your point. The rule about the zero article doesn't list the case of a noun after an imperative. The first link is about the subject, not the object and the third is about negative imperative. Why are you posting links about completely unrelated things? Once again, using a noun without an article this way is gramaticaly incorrect.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  "Share profile photo" would be grammatically incorrect as a complete sentence. But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label. English has different grammar rules in different contexts. For example, newspaper headlines omit articles all the time. That doesn't make the NYT grammatically incorrect on every page, though. Because they're using correct headline grammar, which is different from sentence grammar.
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    > But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label. Agree to disagree. The reason it sounds robotic is because it's grammaticaly incorrect. The article is not optional before the object in this sentence.
    - card_zero 1y ago
      How about these commands: Raise anchor, fix bayonets, hands up I think I'm with crazygringo on this one, there's special command grammar.
      - Thorrez 1y ago
        The 2nd and 3rd examples are plural. You don't need an article for plural nouns. "Fix bayonets." and "Fix the bayonet." are standard grammar. "Fix bayonet." isn't.
        card_zero 1y ago
        Well, hands up is lacking a verb, and fix bayonets is in a funny passive tense - or something - because it seems to say "generally go around looking for bayonets to fix", but means specifically "fix your bayonets". In fact hands up is like that too, the intent is "put your hands up", not just "put hands up" in the abstract. Then there's informational signs, too. Wet floor is not an instruction. Labels generally aren't sentences. Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.
        StopDisinfo910 1y ago
        > Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use. I have never seen this. I have seen plenty of "Please close the gate" or "Keep the gate closed". Sometimes, the article is eluded when the noun is subject "Gate must be kept closed" but imperative + noun without an article on a sign seem highly unusual to me. It feels weird so I would definitely notice. I have seen "ring bell for assistance" however. It's jarring everytime. I must be the strange one.

danaris 1y ago

Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts. The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium. This form of imperative clause does have clear and consistent rules, whether you like them or not. And just stating that your opinion is factually correct, when it is plainly not, reeeeeally doesn't help your cause.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
> The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium. Definitely no, "Give apple" is baby talk. Completely unacceptable in a choice. That's not proper English. I will die on that hill. I'm actually shocked by the amount of people here who thinks it's acceptable and fine. > Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts. The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition. It's entirely analogous to what I wrote. Are you confused by the "me" in my sentence. "Me" is an indirect object here. We basically have the same sentence. It just became entirely obvious that omitting the article is erroneous as soon as you had an indirect object. It's equally erroneous without it but apparently people have somehow convinced themselves it is acceptable after years of misuse in poor computer interfaces.
- danaris 1y ago
  Would you like to give them the apple or the pear? ] Give Apple ] Give Pear Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options? > The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition My apologies, you're correct. I mistyped—I should have said "indirect object". That does not negate any of the rest of what I said.
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    > Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options? Yes, I do. That’s Sierra-like poorly phrased English to save characters in a constrained support. Completely incorrect in any context, inacceptable when you don’t have to save bits. It’s only somewhat understandable because the zero article is used with proper name. Actually I find it interesting that you found the need to capitalise.

d1sxeyes 1y ago

Telegraphic style is not grammatically incorrect, it’s a feature of instructional English. Consider “insert nut into bolt”, “slice onion thinly”, or “sprinkle vinegar over chips”. I agree that your counter example does not work, but that’s due to the ambiguity introduced by having both an indirect and direct object. In a list of short instructions, “give apple to me” would not be ungrammatical.

d1sxeyes 1y ago
obviously you insert bolts into nuts, not the other way round.