Comments on: 16 common grammatical mistakes or problems

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 00:44:17 +0000

I see this is an old post but I just read it today.
I also try not to be too critical because I do not have full command of the English language. There was one thing though that lept off the page at me and which I am surprised no one mentioned. The author wrote “… people who wanted to write good seeded their sentences with random whiches.” This is by far one of my biggest pet-peeves. Good vs. Well. Good writers write well.
For #40: I believe a period belongs inside double quotation marks only if the sentence ends within the quotation marks. Otherwise it does not.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 12:59:45 +0000

In reply to Gender Not-that-new-trality.

Gender, your comment is both correct and incorrect. Usage and rules are not the same. Human language is more comlex and well adapted to the proposes it serves than the rule books ever allow.It is in the rule books that the gender-neutral singular pronoun does not exist, and we can demonstrate this by knowing the rules of grammar, which specific “his/hers” etc in English, and also, by comparing these rules in other languages (many languages simply lack gender specificity. In fact, I’d bet the majority of languages don’t have gender specificity in pronouns, though I’m not sure of that.)

So, no, sorry, the rules are restrictive. But yes, people, as I say in this comment and have noted in dozens of other blog posts and comments of which you are blissfully unaware, language does not follow “the rules” human societies lay out for it to follow.

If you knew whom you are addressing, with respect to understanding of and opinions about language, you would be deeply chagrined with your offensive remark. Fortunately for you, you have commented anonymously and can therefore slink back under some rock without consequence.

By: Gender Not-that-new-trality

Gender Not-that-new-trality — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 02:41:54 +0000

English DOES have a third-person gender-neutral singular pronoun.
They/Them.
It has centuries of usage.
You cannot say that English does not have a third-person gender-neutral singular pronoun and be factually correct. It is also worth noting that there used to be a distinction similar for you/thou (plural term doubling for singular usage); backwards prescriptivist types threw hissyfits at that too.
Get with the times and stop acting as though it’s somehow ungrammatical despite the historic usage.

By: Dean

Dean — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:28:45 +0000

@53. Speaking of airport terminals: if security is such a big deal why is c4 still a gate?

By: Obstreperous Applesauce

Obstreperous Applesauce — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 05:33:38 +0000

“…there’s also cultural institutional reasons…”

Verb agreement. “There are reasons” not “there is reasons,” except on speak like a pirate day when it’s “thar be reasons, aarr.”

By: StevoR

StevoR — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 04:07:52 +0000

@44. dean :

Don’t forget the
“Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways” item.

Or why if flying is so safe the airport is called a terminal; why is a person who is supposed to make a lot of money called a broker and why is abbreviation such a long word?

By: StevoR

StevoR — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 04:03:22 +0000

@49. Obstreperous Applesauce : So there’s the rub .. ?

Hmm.. I guess I see where you’re coming from but colloquial use of contractions; is that really such a big thing?

By: Christopher Winter

Christopher Winter — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:17:42 +0000

Indeed, Paul Murray. Where would Star Trek have been without split infinitives? Their starship's five-year mission would have been "To go where no one has gone before, and do it boldly."

By: Paul Murray

Paul Murray — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 03:39:33 +0000

The split infinitives rule is english grammar-school snobbery. Back in the day, the better classes learned Latin, in which infinitives are never split. In English, it’s a normal part of the language. I did it just a couple of sentences ago, and you didn’t even notice. If I had written “infinitives never are split”, it would have sounded odd, and would have been.

By: Obstreperous Applesauce

Obstreperous Applesauce — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:15:54 +0000

There is reasons…
There are reasons…