The internet is destroying grammar

[Evo]

The internet is destroying grammar. We all tend to "change" the rules a bit in order to make a point or try to clarify meaning. I am a notorious abuser.

Lately, I've seen so many atrocious grammatical errors in some of the posts at PF that were unintentional that I felt it was time to put our members to the test.

Below are links to some fun tests on "Notorious Confusables". There are many other tests available on this site. If you get a run time error when you hit the "start this test" button, close the error box and just hit the "next question" button, the first question will be displayed for you to answer.

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/quizzes/notorious3.htm

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/quizzes/notorious5.htm

Below is a list of humorous grammar rules that all of the closet grammar nerds out there (you know who you are) will appreciate. The rest of you just won't get it.

HUMOROUS GRAMMAR RULES

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.

2. Never use a preposition to end a sentence with. Winston Churchill, corrected on this error once, responded to the young man who corrected him by saying "Young man, that is the kind of impudence up with which I will not put!

3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.

4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)

6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.

7. Be more or less specific.

8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies endlessly over and over again

10. No sentence fragments.

11. Contractions aren't always necessary and shouldn't be used to excess so don’t.

12. Foreign words and phrases are not always apropos.

13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous and can be excessive

14. All generalizations are bad.

15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

16. Don't use no double negatives.

17. Avoid excessive use of ampersands & abbrevs., etc.

18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.

19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake (Unless they are as good as gold).

http://www.creativeteachingsite.com/humorgrammar.htm

 

[Monique]

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects. verb? 2. Never use a preposition to end a sentence with. preposition?[..] the kind of impudence impudence? 3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. conjunction? 4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive. split an infinitive? 5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.) still not sure why that is called cliche 6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration. alliteration? 7. Be more or less specific. I know that one 8/9/10. these ones too 11. Contractions aren't always necessary and shouldn't be used to excess so don’t. contractions? 12. Foreign words and phrases are not always apropos. apropos? 13-19 mastered :shy:

Hey! But I spelled acquaintance correct today (after figuring acquentance didn't look right) and always double check I don't mix your and you're.. so I think that completely makes up for the above

 

[Math Is Hard]

Oooh, I liked those quizzes, Evo. This is getting me warmed up for the composition class I start next month. I have forgotten all my rules of grammar, since I haven't taken a writing class in 20 years. I'm about to go out and pick up a copy of Elements of Style. I don't know where my old copy went.

I have to state my pet peeve here since this is the grammar thread. I hate it when people write "loose" instead of "lose" as in "I was sorry to loose my friend". I have seen incredibly educated people do this and it always makes me cringe.

 

[Monique]

Ah and don't worry, after reading it for the third time I realize there is another layer of complexity in the quote

 

[chroot]

Evo,

Your quizzes aren't about grammar -- they're just about vocabulary.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

Hey! But I spelled acquaintance correct today (after figuring acquentance didn't look right) and always double check I don't mix your and you're.. so I think that completely makes up for the above

Your spelling and grammar (English) are much better than many whose first language is English.

I hate it when people write "loose" instead of "lose" as in "I was sorry to loose my friend". I have seen incredibly educated people do this and it always makes me cringe.

I know what you mean.

Those tests have really refreshed my memory. I will admit I did not get a perfect score on either of the two tests I linked to, which is why I chose them.

I've always loved grammar. I had a really funny grammar teacher when I was in the 5th grade. I will never forget that you do not end a sentance with a preposition because of her story of two men and some ewes (which they pronounced eewees).

 

[Entropy]

wha r u talkin bout!1 it jus a fasta way o typin, I am bizy an go things to do!1one i can't aford to tak 15 mo secs to typ a legibal post!11 lol!

 

[Evo]

Evo,

Your quizzes aren't about grammar -- they're just about vocabulary.

- Warren

Yes, the notorious confusables are vocabulary, the grammar part is the lists below. I should have clarified and said English/grammar, which I guess now is Langauge Arts in high school? For those members chroot that are so picky.

The actual grammar tests were too easy.

 

[BobG]

No way! Parentheses (like salt) can never be overused!

 

[chroot]

I'm one of those horribly picky bastards that tends to unconsciously fault people for even obscure misspellings or grammar mistakes. You might find it hard to believe that I have never used a spell-checker in my entire life, and don't plan on ever using one. I also rarely proofread anything I write. I'm just meticulous enough to rarely let mistakes go as I type.

Imagine my horror when I realized about six months ago that I had been spelling 'guarantee' wrong my entire life! It still doesn't look right to me.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

I'm one of those horribly picky bastards that tends to unconsciously fault people for even obscure misspellings or grammar mistakes. You might find it hard to believe that I have never used a spell-checker in my entire life, and don't plan on ever using one. I also rarely proofread anything I write. I'm just meticulous enough to rarely let mistakes go as I type.

Wow. I was an excellent speller when I was young, but I have noticed lately that I forget how to spell some common words and have to check.

I have always had to proofread carefully because as a teacher once pointed out, I would leave out parts of sentences and even parts of paragraphs when I would write a paper. What killed her was the fact that when she would ask me to read the paper to her, my mind filled in all the blanks. She thought that by having me read the paper I would notice the gaps in thought. Nope.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Although meant tongue-in-cheek, most good writers break these rules all the time.

3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.

But I would like to see this rule overturned in the future. But I doubt they will.

4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

Few hold to this rule anymore. Frankly, the rule is stupid and I break it all the time. I will continue to merrily break it in the future.

8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

I think they're wrong.

10. No sentence fragments.

Wow! Another stupid rule.

By the way, the rules they express use far too many weasel-words. Physician heal thyself. (A cliche.)

 

[JohnDubYa]

Can you say Hemmi?

I realize we are having fun with misspellings, but your butchering of the word "Hemi" hurts my eyes.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I realize we are having fun with misspellings, but your butchering of the word "Hemi" hurts my eyes.

He wasn't trying to spell Hemi. He was trying to spell Hemmi.

 

[quantumdude]

For those members chroot that are so picky.

Actually, that would be "For those members who are so picky".

 

[Nereid]

It's easy to predict what will happen to this thread, it'll collapse under the weight of its posters' opinions.

Now, how many people think this sentence should read:
Its easy to predict what will happen to this thread, it'll collapse under the weight of it's poster's opinions.

The panda.

 

[plover]

I hate it when people write "loose" instead of "lose" as in "I was sorry to loose my friend". I have seen incredibly educated people do this and it always makes me cringe.

This always bothers me when I see it too, but isn't it a regional form of some sort?

Re: prepositions -
1. I've seen that Churchill quote used to support both sides of the argument (i.e. some interpret it as sarcastic rather than scornful). I'm not sure which reading is supported by the original context.
2. There's a perfectly lovely sentence (quite clear in meaning) in one of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels which ends in (IIRC) seven prepositions in a row... (I can't remember which book though, and I'm not having any luck getting Amazon to pull it up either.)

Re: infinitives -
'"That is not a split infinitve; that is a phrasal infix."'

Also - many neuroses (and other (psychological) problems) could be (painlessly) prevented by a more unfettered use of—among other things—parentheses (not to mention em-dashes).

 

[Evo]

It's easy to predict what will happen to this thread, it'll collapse under the weight of its posters' opinions.

Now, how many people think this sentence should read:
Its easy to predict what will happen to this thread, it'll collapse under the weight of it's poster's opinions.

Very clever Nereid.

 

[Evo]

Actually, that would be "For those members who are so picky".

Yes, you're not supposed to use "that" when referring to a person. I know the rules, I just forget them in my old age.

Edit - apparently "that" can be used when the referrence to the person is generic, so although the sentence "for those members who are so picky" would be the preferable choice, saying "for those members that are so picky" is also correct.

If I said "for those members, like Tom, who are so picky" who is the only correct answer.

For example:

3. Students _____ wait until the last minute and cram for exams frequently fail.
answer:
either "who" or "that" would work here

Well done. Either "that" or "who" can refer to people in a generic sense, but "which" would never work here. The Guide contains a quiz devoted to who/that/which choices.

http://webster.commnet.edu/cgi-shl/challenge2.pl/challenge_quiz.htm?cgi_quiz_form=1

 

[Gokul43201]

It's easy to predict what will happen to this thread, it'll collapse under the weight of its posters' opinions.

Now, how many people think this sentence should read:
Its easy to predict what will happen to this thread, it'll collapse under the weight of it's poster's opinions.

The panda.

I'd prefer 'It's easy to predict what will happen to this thread; it'll collapse under the weight of its posters' opinions.'

Safer yet, is 'It's easy to predict what will happen to this thread. It'll collapse under the weight of its posters' opinions.'

Or am I just being @n@l ?

 

[Math Is Hard]

This always bothers me when I see it too, but isn't it a regional form of some sort?

As far as I know, it isn't, but here's what bothers me:

Loose and lose can both be used as verbs. Let's say you're a burglar and you enter my house, inside which is a vicious, snarling dog (with an obsessive-compulsive chewing disorder) on a chain.
If I say, "Stop, thief! Or I'll lose my dog!" then you don't have much to worry about. If I say, "Stop, thief! Or I'll loose my dog!" then you'd best be making a bee-line for the exit!
I think it must be the syntactical ambiguity that's bugging me.

 

[Deniel]

A better one
It is easy to predict what will happen to this thread. It will collapse under the weight of its posters' opinions.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've noticed tons of spelling and grammatical mistakes on PF, but since many members are not from English speaking countries, I feel better about excusing such violations.

And I'm not talking about starting a sentence with a conjunction !

Sometimes, however, you find really bad English coming out of English speakers, and I find that quite disturbing. I don't understand how educated people can not know the difference between 'there', 'their' and 'they're'.

I'm beginning to feel convinced that in today's approach to education (especially in the US) it is so important to make a student feel comfortable with writing, that enforcing correct grammar and spelling might be risking turning the students off writing entirely. I understand this attitude in the setting of an inner city school, but it feels like it's more prevalent than that.

Edit : corrected colloquialism...but why ?

 

[Evo]

I'm sometimes amazed that some posters have a better grasp of English even though English is a second language for them.

I often wonder if the seeming lack of concern over the correct use of words and grammar is an indication of changes to come in the English language.

I just don't know if I will ever be able to accept all of the abused words I see used as proper English. I can't imagine listening to a speech like this from a politician "I dunno, I don't want to raise taxes, but I gotta, so I'm gonna. Course, you know, maybe I could of just cut some programs outta the budget."

 

[plover]

As far as I know, it isn't, but here's what bothers me:

Loose and lose can both be used as verbs. Let's say you're a burglar and you enter my house, inside which is a vicious, snarling dog (with an obsessive-compulsive chewing disorder) on a chain.
If I say, "Stop, thief! Or I'll lose my dog!" then you don't have much to worry about. If I say, "Stop, thief! Or I'll loose my dog!" then you'd best be making a bee-line for the exit!
I think it must be the syntactical ambiguity that's bugging me.

Oh, I agree that the ambiguity is most likely what gets my feathers in a knot. I wish I could remember where I got the idea that it might be considered acceptable usage in some section of Anglophonia.

However, isn't your example demonstrating the reverse problem? I.e. putting 'lose' in place of 'loose' instead of vice versa. I don't think I've ever seen that...

(And besides if the dog gets lost you can just follow the trail of chewed on fence posts/car tires/living room walls/civil service employees/small skyscrapers...)

 

[Moonbear]

Oh boy! The one thing I'm always certain about is that when I post something about grammar, I'll make a grammatical error! I break a LOT of grammatical rules while posting here. I realize there's quite a difference between informal conversation and formal grammar rules. I have two major pet peeves. One is the mixing up of homophones (e.g., weather, whether, wether). I chose that example because I get the biggest laugh out of the misuse of the last word in the list (now we'll learn who REALLY lives on a farm). My other pet peeve is lack of commas. I see that a lot, even in submitted manuscripts. I hate reading through a sentence just to have to re-read it again to figure out where the pauses were supposed to be. I do tend to mentally correct everything I read. It's a bad habit. I think there must be a shortage of commas in the UK, because everything I've ever read by anyone from Britain has been hopelessly lacking in commas. Wait, make that three pet peeves. I also go crazy every time I see someone write "would of" or "should of" instead of "would have" or "should have."

I do, however, suspect that Microsoft has changed the English language. My spellcheck always tells me that "labelled" is supposed to be spelled "labeled." I was taught you always double the consonant at the end of a word before adding -ed. I usually leave spellcheck off, though. It just doesn't know what to do with half the words I use. I also despise grammar check! It's sometimes just plain wrong.

Okay, that was tough. I managed to get through a whole post without using ellipses. That's my favorite grammatical rule to break. :-) No, that's not a geometric form. Look through my posts and you'll quickly see that I love to connect thoughts with three dots. A period is correct, but that just never seems like as much fun to me.

It's nice to have a place to vent about grammar pet peeves!

 

[Math Is Hard]

However, isn't your example demonstrating the reverse problem? I.e. putting 'lose' in place of 'loose' instead of vice versa. I don't think I've ever seen that...

(And besides if the dog gets lost you can just follow the trail of chewed on fence posts/car tires/living room walls/civil service employees/small skyscrapers...)

hee hee hee ... Here's a context where both might work:

If I lose my dog, all God's creation will get chewed.
If I loose my dog, all God's creation will get chewed.

Either way, everything gets chewed. (I actually don't have a dog. I just borrowed a chew-happy dog from another member. )

However, if I am called into court for the actions of the dog, and I say "Your honor, I loosed the dog." as opposed to "Your honor, I lost the dog." then it becomes quite a different matter.

 

[Moonbear]

Either way, everything gets chewed. (I actually don't have a dog. I just borrowed a chew-happy dog from another member. )

Is Evo missing a dog?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Is Evo missing a dog?

I said I'd return her ASAP but she said "Take your time, take your time..."

 

[plover]

Hmm... there's one of those old logic puzzles hidden here somewhere.

If dog a chews on everything that does not chew on itself ... yadda yadda ... arriving too late to save a drowning ... yadda yadda ... always tells the truth on alternate days ... yadda yadda ... so what color was the bear?​

 

[The Bob]

There is a thread where me and Gokul had a discussion about grammar:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=33976

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[JohnDubYa]

"me and Gokul." Heh.

 

[The Bob]

"me and Gokul." Heh.

What, have I missed something??

The Bob (2004 ©)

*EDIT* Ok and Parth Dave and NateTG.

 

[Nereid]

There is a thread where me and Gokul had a discussion about grammar:

"There is a thread where me () had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where () Gokul had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where Gokul and me/I had a discussion ..."

why does the addition of 'and' make you change want to change 'I' to 'me'?

There are plenty of other examples:
"My sister and I went shopping"
"I and my sister went shopping"
"Me and my sister went shopping"
"I went shopping"
"We - my sister and I/me - went shopping"
"My sister went shopping"

 

[Nereid]

I do, however, suspect that Microsoft has changed the English language. My spellcheck always tells me that "labelled" is supposed to be spelled "labeled." I was taught you always double the consonant at the end of a word before adding -ed. I usually leave spellcheck off, though. It just doesn't know what to do with half the words I use. I also despise grammar check! It's sometimes just plain wrong.

"Physics Forums is one forum on the internet, there are many others. How useful are these forums/fora in terms of providing an outlet for creative teens?"

Type this into you favourite version of MS' Word app, and see what it does to 'fora'. Then change the language to any variety of English and see if there's a difference.

 

[Gokul43201]

Until I joined PF I was under the impression that 'fora' is the correct plural of 'forum'. Through a discussion I had with matt grime, I've come to learn that 'forums' is commonly used and is definitely acceptable.

Moonbear, I too have been spelling words like 'traveled', 'traveler' and 'labeled' as 'travelled', 'traveller' and 'labelled' for the longest time; until MS Word shocked me with a squiggly, red underline. Apparently, this is another "simplification" invented by Americans, and the 'double-consonanted-spellings' are still good in British English.

I get the feeling that dictionaries and atlases are going extinct in the US.

 

[Njorl]

I had my own private grammatical crusade in high school. It concerned participles and passive verbs. Participles are verbal forms used as adjectives. In the sentence, "Catch the falling plate.", falling is a participle. It is used as an adjective, not a verb. This is true when the verb of the sentence is active, like "Catch". For some strange reason, when the verb of the sentence is passive, the participle is no longer considered an adjective. It is now part of the verb. This is nonsense.

For example.

In these sentences:

1. Catch the falling plate.
2. The plate is falling.
3. The plate is blue.

In 1, "falling" is an adjective, In 2, "falling" is part of the verb. In 3, "blue" is an adjective. This is irrational. In sentences 2 and 3, "falling" and "blue" fulfill exactly the same part of speech. They are adjectives just like "falling" in sentence 1. I am right. The entire heirarchy of grammar gurus are wrong. I will go to my grave thinking this and have it engraved on my tombstone.

Um...

Thank you for your time.
Njorl

 

[quantumdude]

generic[/I], so although the sentence "for those members who are so picky" would be the preferable choice, saying "for those members that are so picky" is also correct.

So chroot is generic? :surprise:

If I said "for those members, like Tom, who are so picky" who is the only correct answer.

*cough* That would be "for those members, such as[/color] Tom, who are so picky."

"Like" is for comparison between two subjects. "Such as" is for citing an example of a subject from a larger class.

 

[Evo]

So chroot is generic? :surprise:

Heheh, I KNEW you would say something about that. Well, chroot is a joke, inserted like a "subliminal" suggestion, and not considered by me to be part of the sentence. (fears Tom's superior grammar abilities) :shy:

*cough* That would be "for those members, such as[/color] Tom, who are so picky."

"Like" is for comparison between two subjects. "Such as" is for citing an example of a subject from a larger class.

I have no defense. I blew it. Not only is my spelling going down the drain, so is my grammar. Soon I will be typing "could of".

 

[quantumdude]

Ha Ha

Don't feel bad, the only reason I notice this stuff is that I used to teach test prep courses for The Princeton Review (SAT/GRE/GMAT). "Like" vs. "Such as" is a favorite trap of ETS (Educational Testing Service).

 

[Artman]

I know it's risky for me to join in a thread on grammer, but here goes...

Grammer and proper spelling are merely tools to help us to be understood. It is frequently necessary to bend or break the rules to achieve the feeling you want your sentence to convey. For instance, a humourous story may be well served with a weak, meandering structure, while a business letter may work better with short sentences or even fragments of sentences. And in creative writing, anything goes.

 

[BobG]

I realize we are having fun with misspellings, but your butchering of the word "Hemi" hurts my eyes.

John, John, John

Obviously, you need an education: http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/hemmi.html

As to travelling/traveling: both have been considered acceptable as long as I can remember (I imagine only the single consonant will be acceptable by the time I forget). The double consonant is the more common form. I have no idea how Microsoft decided the single consonant was the 'correct' form - maybe it's an experiment to measure how much influence they have on America.

 

[The Bob]

"There is a thread where me () had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where () Gokul had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where Gokul and me/I had a discussion ..."

why does the addition of 'and' make you change want to change 'I' to 'me'?

There are plenty of other examples:
"My sister and I went shopping"
"I and my sister went shopping"
"Me and my sister went shopping"
"I went shopping"
"We - my sister and I/me - went shopping"
"My sister went shopping"

I didn't feel it made that much difference.

Sorry.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[Artman]

I didn't feel it made that much difference.

Sorry.

The Bob (2004 ©)

We all knew what he meant, so "me" and The Bob both think it doesn't really make that much difference.

However, in defense of those pushing for proper grammar (oops, just noticed I spelled grammar wrong in my previous post ), it does reflect on your level of education. It's okay to break the rules, but you should be able to show that you know them.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's two kinds of bad grammar :

1. Some split infinitives, colloquialisms, starting sentences with conjunctions, ending with prepositions, and others that a purist might frown upon.

2. Grammar that makes you (the average, educated, non-purist) wince when you read it.

 

[The Bob]

We all knew what he meant, so "me" and The Bob both think it doesn't really make that much difference.

Thanks

However, in defense of those pushing for proper grammar (oops, just noticed I spelled grammar wrong in my previous post ), it does reflect on your level of education. It's okay to break the rules, but you should be able to show that you know them.

Should it not be 'I spelt grammar wrong'?

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[BobG]

Thanks



Should it not be 'I spelt grammar wrong'?

The Bob (2004 ©)

Ounly in the UK or Australia. In American English, it's spelled 'spelled'. (But I did throw in a 'u' for you).

My sister and her husband lived in Italy for awhile and took language classes in Italian. Imagine their surprise when they found out they already knew the Italian word for zucchini (zucchini) and had never heard of the English word (courgette).

 

[cookiemonster]

Or maybe "I spelled 'grammar' wrongly"?

cookiemonster

 

[plover]

In these sentences:

1. Catch the falling plate.
2. The plate is falling.
3. The plate is blue.

In 1, "falling" is an adjective, In 2, "falling" is part of the verb. In 3, "blue" is an adjective. This is irrational. In sentences 2 and 3, "falling" and "blue" fulfill exactly the same part of speech. They are adjectives just like "falling" in sentence 1. I am right. The entire heirarchy of grammar gurus are wrong. I will go to my grave thinking this and have it engraved on my tombstone.

This is actually an artifact of English syntax. In many other languages the meaning conveyed by the English form "noun is verbing" is quite obviously a verb form. E.g. in French, "L'assiette tombe." can mean either "The plate falls." or "The plate is falling." "is falling" is the way English forms a certain verb tense (I think it's called the present progressive, but that might not be quite right). In Russian, there is no word used that corresponds to "is" the way it is used in either sentence in English, but in the translated equivalents "Plate falling" uses a verb, and "Plate -- blue" uses an adjective.

"is falling" is a verb phrase for the same reason "has fallen" is a verb phrase. For an example where English combines tenses that are separate in another language consider the sentences "The plate has fallen from the shelf." and "That plate has fallen from the shelf several times." In English, both sentences use "has fallen", but in French two different forms would be required.

You may go back to believing what you like now though. Far be it from me to interfere with anyone's dogmatic grammar foibles...

Points of grammar aside, in a few hundred years, when someone finds a tombstone reading "Catch the falling plate. The plate is falling. The plate is blue.", they're definitely going to decide the 21st century was weird...

 

[Moonbear]

I know it's risky for me to join in a thread on grammer, but here goes...

Grammer and proper spelling are merely tools to help us to be understood. It is frequently necessary to bend or break the rules to achieve the feeling you want your sentence to convey. For instance, a humourous story may be well served with a weak, meandering structure, while a business letter may work better with short sentences or even fragments of sentences. And in creative writing, anything goes.

For the most part, grammar rules serve to maintain clear meaning of sentences. Breaking the rules leads to ambiguity. In spoken language, it's easier to break the rules and still convey clear meaning because we have the assistance of inflection of voice. In written language, that inflection is absent, so one must rely solely on the grammatical structure.

I think all of this helps explain the popularity of the book "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves," which is pretty much a book of grammar with humorous examples of the ambiguities created by poor grammar.