# I will judge you...(pet peeves)



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular. Not in posts, and casual conversation, but in writing that has plenty of time for editing  and it's consistent. I hate that this is becoming accepted.

I also do not like " 's" being used incorrectly after numbers. It's not "I lived in the 80's." It's, "I lived in the '80s." 

Anyway, I'm not in the USA and this seems more acceptable there.

I'd also like to vent about the use of the symbols for feet and inches being used in place of apostrophes. In one book I just saw, they were using both. But I won't vent about that now. 

And I'm grumpy. LOL


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

We're human. We make mistakes. We need editors.

I could edit your post, but I hate Grammar Nazis.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Meh. Language changes. If it didn't, we could all read Chaucer without needing footnotes to explain stuff. 

As to the use of 'they' as a gender neutral choice when you're only talking about one but don't know whether the one is a he or a she -- I totally get that. It does make me twitch a bit. On the other hand, to keep saying 'he or she' or 'he/she' or 's/he' feels really unwieldy and kinda makes me twitch, too!   In most case one could probably rewrite the sentence to avoid the problem altogether.   Which would be my choice if I was writing for 'publication'.

I'm confused about what you think is wrong about living in the '80's.  That's pretty standard usage as far as I'm aware.  Or, at least, completely accepted and, again, doesn't make me twitch.   I get that the apostrophe is normally possessive, but I feel like when it's used with a number like that it's not a big deal.  Nothing wrong with 80s either (I had to correct that -- I automatically typed 80's and had to go back and take out the ', so I'm feeling like it's very much a standard) -- maybe there is a rule I just don't know. 

If I was using the symbols for feet and inches instead of spelling out or abbreviating (ft. in.), I'd totally use ' and " which are the single and double quote symbols on my keyboard.  If there's something else one is meant to use, I'm not aware of it.  One absolutely should be consistent, of course, or else it looks sloppy.

I will agree that manuscripts should be held to a somewhat higher standard than casual posts -- though, arguably, if you hold yourself out as a professional writer (I do NOT) then you ought to be pretty careful even on message boards.


----------



## Cat Amesbury (Jan 29, 2014)

One of the best, and most frustrating, parts of the English language is its ability to constantly reinvent itself and beg, borrow or steal neologisms or words from other languages.

I will note for the use of singular "their" that it is in fact not a recent invention and has been used since the fourteenth century by writers and classic works such as Jane Austen, Geoffrey Chaucer and the KJB. See here (http://languagehat.com/singular-their/) for more information.


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

Eh. I don't mind the plural pronoun for gender-neutral singular substitute. It's far less awkward than saying "he or she" or "s/he" all the time, or just picking one and running with it to the exclusion of all other gender identifiers.

What bugs me is the now-common acceptance of the word "literally" to mean "literally anything BUT the actual definition of literally." Grrrrr.

I can't even count how many people have told me that they "literally died." If you literally died, it would be impossible for you to tell me anything right now! Argh!


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Catchy said:


> I'd also like to vent about the use of the symbols for feet and inches being used in place of apostrophes.


I dislike that too.


----------



## josephdevon (Feb 6, 2014)

S.W. Vaughn said:


> Eh. I don't mind the plural pronoun for gender-neutral singular substitute. It's far less awkward than saying "he or she" or "s/he" all the time, or just picking one and running with it to the exclusion of all other gender identifiers.
> 
> What bugs me is the now-common acceptance of the word "literally" to mean "literally anything BUT the actual definition of literally." Grrrrr.
> 
> I can't even count how many people have told me that they "literally died." If you literally died, it would be impossible for you to tell me anything right now! Argh!


That use of literally has been in use for centuries. Dickens even employed it among others:

http://blog.dictionary.com/literally/


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Joliedupre said:


> We're human. We make mistakes. We need editors.
> 
> I could edit your post, but I hate Grammar Nazis.


Feel free, however I don't care how people talk or write casually so much; unless you're saying, "We has those...". That's part of our culture. Plus, the US rules are different than the UK rules and our Canadian rules seem to land somewhere in between.

You need to edit for your audience. I write for Canadian publications and the CP (Canadian Press) Style is considerably different than the two manuals most used in the USA.


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

josephdevon said:


> That use of literally has been in use for centuries. Dickens even employed it among others:
> 
> http://blog.dictionary.com/literally/


Interesting link.  I read it -- and it still bugs me. 

Dickens notwithstanding (and I don't believe classic literature should dictate modern usage -- although I do like Dickens  -- but that's another point entirely), it's the last paragraph of the blog post that pretty much sums up why I don't like it:



> I'd argue that when juxtaposed with seemingly outrageous but accurate statements, the original meaning becomes more effective exactly because it can also mean "figuratively," and a listener must pause to determine which meaning the speaker intends. A guest on American Public Media's Marketplace, discussing a business agreement with a real and actual $1,000,000,000 price tag said: *"That is literally the billion-dollar question."* In this way, literally is a more effective intensifier than really, actually, or absolutely. Today does the intensifying sense pack more of a punch because of the widespread figurative use?


I think that literal having a widespread figurative use actually _diminishes_ its effect as an intensifier. When a word has two meanings, people shouldn't have to pause to figure out which meaning was intended in the context of the sentence. The example sentence (my bold) given here is, IMHO, punchier because it is literal in the intended -- and more impressive, considering the context -- definition of the word.

But I'm just one person with an opinion, after all.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular. Not in posts, and casual conversation, but in writing that has plenty of time for editing and it's consistent. I hate that this is becoming accepted.
> 
> I also do not like " 's" being used incorrectly after numbers. It's not "I lived in the 80's." It's, "I lived in the '80s."
> 
> ...


I agree w/ you on the plural pronoun thing.... especially, as you stipulate, in _formal_ writing. As you say, in speech, e-mail, blog posts, comment boards.... that's one thing; we all do it, and it's much simpler. But in a book that's supposed to be a professional-grade product, it's very off-putting. (Obviously dialogue is an exception.)

Not sure what you mean about feet and inches. Other than using pure text "he was six feet, two inches tall" or the 'apostrophes (6'2"), what do you mean by using "symbols"?


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular. Not in posts, and casual conversation, but in writing that has plenty of time for editing and it's consistent. I hate that this is becoming accepted.


I tend to agree with you about this one, though there are other equivalents which I dislike even more.



Catchy said:


> It's not "I lived in the 80's." It's, "I lived in the '80s."


Nope. That's stylistic only, not "right and wrong". I've done editing work for some mainstream UK publishers and can report that it's one of the things that varies from publishing house to publishing house (and indeed from textbook to textbook). Personally, I prefer to use the apostrophe. So there. 



Catchy said:


> And I'm grumpy.


Aren't we all? 



S.W. Vaughn said:


> What bugs me is the now-common acceptance of the word "literally" to mean "literally anything BUT the actual definition of literally." Grrrrr.


Yup. I'm with you all the way. However long that's been in common usage, it's still nasty.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

Your first pet peeve I was taught in school. I've had to avoid it since becoming a writer, but it annoys me because I then end up using 'he', which doesn't feel right to me. 

Language does indeed change. I would like to keep up with the changes, but readers don't like it.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

zoe tate said:


> I tend to agree with you about this one, though there are other equivalents which I dislike even more.
> 
> Nope. That's stylistic only, not "right and wrong". I've done editing work for some mainstream UK publishers and can report that it's one of the things that varies from publishing house to publishing house (and indeed from textbook to textbook). Personally, I prefer to use the apostrophe. So there.
> 
> ...


Putting an apostrophe before an "s" is still only used for indication of a possessive noun. So, of course it would be correct sometimes, in which case you'd usually put the full year: 1980's. Most mainstream publishers would not stick an apostrophe without a function in there, and they'd not leave the necessary apostrophe off the beginning. Do you use '80s', with both?


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Jena H said:


> I agree w/ you on the plural pronoun thing.... especially, as you stipulate, in _formal_ writing. As you say, in speech, e-mail, blog posts, comment boards.... that's one thing; we all do it, and it's much simpler. But in a book that's supposed to be a professional-grade product, it's very off-putting. (Obviously dialogue is an exception.)
> 
> Not sure what you mean about feet and inches. Other than using pure text "he was six feet, two inches tall" or the 'apostrophes (6'2"), what do you mean by using "symbols"?


Feet = '
Inches = "
Double quote = "
Single quote = '

Quotation marks are slanted (they do not have to be curly quotes as people claim). The symbols for feet and inches are straight up and down (like the default for this forum).


----------



## SandraMiller (May 10, 2011)

S.W. Vaughn said:


> I think that literal having a widespread figurative use actually _diminishes_ its effect as an intensifier. When a word has two meanings, people shouldn't have to pause to figure out which meaning was intended in the context of the sentence. The example sentence (my bold) given here is, IMHO, punchier because it is literal in the intended -- and more impressive, considering the context -- definition of the word.


I totally get you (that's one of my peeves as well) More than that, the Oatmeal gets you too (warning--a bit of language and some possibly offensive humor herein):

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

I'll just leave this here . . .


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Catchy said:


> Putting an apostrophe before an "s" is still only used for indication of a possessive noun. So, of course it would be correct sometimes, in which case you'd usually put the full year: 1980's. Most mainstream publishers would not stick an apostrophe without a function in there, and they'd not leave the necessary apostrophe off the beginning. Do you use '80s', with both?


Not 'only'. With _it's_, the apostrophe is for the contraction of _it is_ and the possessive is actually _its_. In fact I've often seen -- admittedly in less formal writing, _'s_ used with nouns to indicate a contraction: instead of "Joe is going home", "Joe's going home." It's accepted usage I say.

As to literally, when I mean literally, literally, I often say, "literally, literally".  Especially with grammar fiends, er . . friends.  I don't use the word unless I mean 'literally'. If I mean figuratively, I say 'figuratively'. Or write it as a metaphor or simile.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Catchy said:


> Putting an apostrophe before an "s" is still only used for indication of a possessive noun.


Again, no. You're mistaken, here: it has other uses, too (such as in abbreviated plurals: Members of Parliament, abbreviated, are mentioned in Oxford University Press publications as "MP's", with an apostrophe. Unless you really want us to believe that you're "right" and Oxford University Press is therefore "wrong", it may help you to research this one a little better, and think about whether it might just be stylistic, with various usages being widely accepted.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

Maybe I'm grouchy too, but what on earth is wrong with writing five foot six inches as 5'6"? That's that way it's written when using math. If you don't even live in the US, why let it bother you? You probably use the metric system anyway, unless you're in one of the two itty-bitty other countries that use feet. 5'6" is a correct way to write that measurement - unless I was taught wrong all the way through my schooling.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Not 'only'. With _it's_, the apostrophe is for the contraction of _it is_ and the possessive is actually _its_. In fact I've often seen -- admittedly in less formal writing, _'s_ used with nouns to indicate a contraction: instead of "Joe is going home", "Joe's going home." It's accepted usage I say.


Sorry. You're correct, of course. I was just talking specifically about using it with numbers. "Joe's going home" is acceptable here...usually.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Catchy said:


> Feet = '
> Inches = "
> Double quote = "
> Single quote = '
> ...


That may be, but on the average keyboard there is not a distinction. So unless you're using a font that is 'smart' or you bother with the ascii coding, you get ' and '' regardless. I get that when you're 'typesetting' something there are ways to distinguish such things and standards should be followed. Still, I think as long as it's consistent it wouldn't bother me. Though, as I say, I'd probably opt for an abbreviation instead. Avoid the problem altogether.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Stacy Claflin said:


> You probably use the metric system anyway, unless you're in one of the two itty-bitty other countries that use feet.


Don't look now, but most of the English-speaking world actually uses feet, in some contexts, and that's quite a few "itty-bitty other countries".


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

zoe tate said:


> Again, no. You're mistaken, here: it has other uses, too (such as in abbreviated plurals: Members of Parliament, abbreviated, are mentioned in Oxford University Press publications as "MP's", with an apostrophe. Unless you really want us to believe that you're "right" and Oxford University Press is therefore "wrong", it may help you to research this one a little better, and think about whether it might just be stylistic, with various usages being widely accepted.


Well, I'm not in the UK, we use CP (Canadian Press). It's MPs here, unless it's possessive, according to page 130 of The Canadian Press Caps and Spelling, 20th edition printed in 2012.


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular.


Is this a thing? ?

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

The metric system wasn't introduced here until the 1970s. Most of us older folk still "talk in feet and inches" but formally we have to trade using metric and that's on our products. Carpenters still seem to use feet and inches, and in any business dealing with America, we would put both, with metric first, most of the time. Unless they've changed it. I know this from buying fabric, LOL.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Oh, and recipes. If you go online and get an American recipe, you'll want measuring cups and spoons that are either old school or have both measurement systems. Unless you enjoy math.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Serial posting!!

What about when people say "he stood six foot six"? Why isn't it "he stood six feet six"?


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

von19 said:


> Is this a thing? ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


No, the English language does not have a gender neutral option.

In rpg books, we often get around this by alternating between the male and female pronouns between paragraphs, so in paragraph A you would use the male pronoun and paragraph B use the female and on and on.


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

SandraMiller said:


> I totally get you (that's one of my peeves as well) More than that, the Oatmeal gets you too (warning--a bit of language and some possibly offensive humor herein):
> 
> http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally


That is amazing. I NEED that as a poster. And I may possibly need a rainbow steamroller tattoo.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

S.W. Vaughn said:


> That is amazing. I NEED that as a poster. And I may possibly need a rainbow steamroller tattoo.


Isn't that awesome?


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

I'm somewhere in between. I like rules that make understanding easier or universal for those wanting to read English. That's the only language I know because I'm ignorant. Routinely in Europe, people know two or three languages. I didn't even know that in India most there know three until I heard about it on Joanna Penn's podcast the other day. They have more than 20 I think, and use English as their trade tongue, and then an indian sort of common tongue, and then the one used in their home state. All of them have their own rules; so do all the other countries. France anyone? Male and female words??

SO when I think about rules of any language, I use the ones I like (usually because it makes reading and understanding easier) and I discard the ones that I don't like--the ones that just make a book a pain in the arse to read. I don't feel guilty about either. I am not writing a contract, I'm trying to entertain.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

markecooper said:


> I'm somewhere in between. I like rules that make understanding easier or universal for those wanting to read English. That's the only language I know because I'm ignorant. Routinely in Europe, people know two or three languages. I didn't even know that in India most there know three until I heard about it on Joanna Penn's podcast the other day. They have more than 20 I think, and use English as their trade tongue, and then an indian sort of common tongue, and then the one used in their home state. All of them have their own rules; so do all the other countries. France anyone? Male and female words??
> 
> SO when I think about rules of any language, I use the ones I like (usually because it makes reading and understanding easier) and I discard the ones that I don't like--the ones that just make a book a pain in the arse to read. I don't feel guilty about either. I am not writing a contract, I'm trying to entertain.


I think they say ass in America.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Huh. So, arse is allowed but a ss is not?


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Catchy said:


> Huh. So, arse is allowed but a ss is not?


Shush! Betsy might find out


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

von19 said:


> Is this a thing? ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


Yes. If you pay attention to how people speak, you'll hear it constantly. It used to bug me, but I've given up fighting it. I've begun to see it as a conscious choice in formal texts, so the process of speech>writing is already underway. English needs a gender-neutral pronoun, and this is the way it's happening. Resisting the tide of language change is futile. I don't think we've had a pronoun change since we lost ye and thee/thy/thine/thou, so I guess it's about time.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Catchy said:


> Huh. So, arse is allowed but a ss is not?


It's a US site . . . . so the language filters are set based on US usage. Arse is not a word people use so is not construed to be a 'bad word' in any sense. But we are getting more international, so we should probably add it.  (Also, it's not appropriate to play games to get _around_ the language filters.  )


----------



## Sassafrazzled (Mar 14, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> Yes. If you pay attention to how people speak, you'll hear it constantly. It used to bug me, but I've given up fighting it. I've begun to see it as a conscious choice in formal texts, so the process of speech>writing is already underway. English needs a gender-neutral pronoun, and this is the way it's happening. Resisting the tide of language change is futile. I don't think we've had a pronoun change since we lost ye and thee/thy/thine/thou, so I guess it's about time.


Agreed, the ship has sailed on this one. It has a long history of historical use and at least to my (American) ear sounds much more natural than trying to shoehorn in the alternatives people have been attempting to normalize so far.

_Examples from oxfordictionaries.com:
"If your child is thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website."
"A researcher has to be completely objective in their findings."_

I understand the source of the debate, but neither of those sound at all strange to me.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> It's a US site . . . . so the language filters are set based on US usage. Arse is not a word people use so is not construed to be a 'bad word' in any sense. But we are getting more international, so we should probably add it.  (Also, it's not appropriate to play games to get _around_ the language filters.  )


Just a quick word in defense of myself, Harvey. I wasn't playing a game or trying to get around anything. I am a Brit and write the proper way as I was taught. I didn't think about the filters. I never do. I didn't notice until the next person commented on it. I guess my bad sense of humour and mention of Betsy made it seem that I did it on purpose. I did not.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Rules are not forever


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

zoe tate said:


> Don't look now, but most of the English-speaking world actually uses feet, in some contexts, and that's quite a few "itty-bitty other countries".


Sure. Just like we learn the metric system!


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No, the English language does not have a gender neutral option.


Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns

Not liking them and/or not wanting to use them does not equate to those pronouns not existing.



Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular. Not in posts, and casual conversation, but in writing that has plenty of time for editing and it's consistent. I hate that this is becoming accepted.


These have a long history in English, dating back to around 1300 CE, and were good enough for literary small-fries such as Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Shaw, and others. Guess you need to start a-judgin' their usage.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

Different peeve but it's driving me nuts because I see it so often, is when the writer has speech followed by an action by another character, not the speaker. Confuses the hell out of me as a reader.



> Don't look now, but most of the English-speaking world actually uses feet, in some contexts


An ex once said people (in Australia at least) only use imperial measurements for buying drugs or talking about penis size


----------



## Issy (Aug 25, 2013)

I value consistency. If the start of the book has feet and inches I do not want to read about centimetres (or centimeters!) later on. If you flip from "in the 80's" to "in the 80s" I will roll my eyes. If you spell out numbers such as twelve and then change to 12, I'll groan.

But I will still keep reading if your character grabs me. I may be less inclined, however, to buy your next book, because I will perceive it - rightly or wrongly - as poorly edited, and in a world full of fantastic books to read, I have to have some way of choosing what to read next.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular. Not in posts, and casual conversation, but in writing that has plenty of time for editing and it's consistent. I hate that this is becoming accepted.
> 
> I also do not like " 's" being used incorrectly after numbers. It's not "I lived in the 80's." It's, "I lived in the '80s."
> 
> ...


Since there are no gender-neutral singular personal pronouns in English, I will continue to do so whether it annoys someone or not. 

Just sayin'.



markecooper said:


> Shush! Betsy might find out


Betsy knows.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

JRTomlin said:


> Since there are no gender-neutral singular personal pronouns in English, I will continue to do so whether it annoys someone or not.
> 
> Just sayin'.


I've asked a female English teacher I know what they teach nowadays. I figure she's my age and female so the use of "he" as we were taught as kids when it's indeterminate probably annoys her as it does me. (I always asked my English teachers why that was the rule and there was never a good answer.) But since she's an English teacher I'm sure 'they' used as singular makes her twitch as well.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I've asked a female English teacher I know what they teach nowadays. I figure she's my age and female so the use of "he" as we were taught as kids when it's indeterminate probably annoys her as it does me. (I always asked my English teachers why that was the rule and there was never a good answer.) But since she's an English teacher I'm sure 'they' used as singular makes her twitch as well.


When I look at this from reader standpoint and the pov is male talking about someone indeterminate, then I think it flows naturally for him to say he. The opposite for a female pov. I think they is more than fine, but doing the he or she thing is just horrible to read. All IMHO of course


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

I just had a friend on FB ask me about using 'they' and 'their' as gender-neutral pronouns last night, and I gave him this big speech about how language is fluid and there's no hard set rules.

He mentioned that English is one of the only languages that doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun (and he speaks four different languages beyond English, plus I'm not going to take Wiki's word for anything), which is true. However, it is common usage these days for they and their to fill that role, so again, it shows that language, and not just English, is very fluid and changes over time. If we time traveled back to 1300's England and tried to talk modern English to them, they'd run us through with swords or burn us at the stake for being crazed demon-men (persons!).

Then I ranted about how English is possibly the stupidest language ever created and so on and so forth, which made all of my foreign friends happy haha. It's the only language I am fluent in, for the record. And it's still the dumbest language ever created.

But that's the great thing about opinions. Everyone has them, and there's really no write (heh) or wrong. That's why they are opinions.



> Putting an apostrophe before an "s" is still only used for indication of a possessive noun.


as others have pointed out, this is incorrect.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular. Not in posts, and casual conversation, but in writing that has plenty of time for editing and it's consistent. I hate that this is becoming accepted.


Shakespeare used it. There's good evidence this always _was_ correct, inasmuch as English has no gender-neutral singular anyway. That said, I've always felt it sounded awkward. I can't really fault anyone for using it, but it does give me a squidgy feeling.

Spelling "all right" as one word, on the other hand...



> I also do not like " 's" being used incorrectly after numbers. It's not "I lived in the 80's." It's, "I lived in the '80s."
> 
> Anyway, I'm not in the USA and this seems more acceptable there.


This is just stupidity creeping in. Same problem as the its/it's issue. Schools don't teach and students don't learn. There are of course acceptable uses for the 's construction to indicate a plural, which are very similar (e.g., "How many A's in 'danger'?"), so I think that confuses people.



> I'd also like to vent about the use of the symbols for feet and inches being used in place of apostrophes. In one book I just saw, they were using both. But I won't vent about that now.


As far as ASCII is concerned, those are apostrophes and double quotes; they're merely not formatted nicely. I always convert to the proper forms before publishing. However, I never write with the final forms unless I'm doing very late-stage editing, because so-called smart quotes in a word processor can't be trusted.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular. Not in posts, and casual conversation, but in writing that has plenty of time for editing and it's consistent. I hate that this is becoming accepted.
> 
> I also do not like " 's" being used incorrectly after numbers. It's not "I lived in the 80's." It's, "I lived in the '80s."
> 
> ...


You will find many who disagree with you regarding "style" (not grammar) when it comes to the contraction of decades, or pluralising multi-digit numerals. Sir Ernest Gowers, Eric Partridge among them. I had this argument very early in my career and was obliged to ignore grammar in favour of house rules. House at that time was News Limited then Fairfax. If you Google 70's you will get 305 million hits. If you Google '70s you will get 30 million hits. Sad but difficult to ignore.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Catchy said:


> Oh, and recipes. If you go online and get an American recipe, you'll want measuring cups and spoons that are either old school or have both measurement systems. Unless you enjoy math.


You can also get a #303 can of peas.
Butter the size of an egg.
5 cents worth of baking powder.
A teacup of sugar.

Those are all examples of measurements I have seen in recipes.

Now let's all sit down and have some biscuits. For those of us in the southern US, I will also make some gravy and put out butter and molasses for them. You can use either the gravy or the butter or the butter and molasses.
For our lovely folks across the pond, I will set out glasses of milk to go with your biscuits.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Catchy said:


> Well, I'm not in the UK, we use CP (Canadian Press). It's MPs here, unless it's possessive, according to page 130 of The Canadian Press Caps and Spelling, 20th edition printed in 2012.


I don't know where you got the idea that "we" use CP-only CP uses CP. The official style manual for the federal government is _The Canadian Style_, which is published by Public Works (available free on-line). All the university presses and commercial Canadian presses I know of use Chicago along with a style sheet of exceptions.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> Spelling "all right" as one word, on the other hand...


According to Merriam-Webster, the use of 'alright' has been around since 1887.


----------



## melbatron (Dec 8, 2013)

I feel your Grammar Nazi pain.

Depending on who's supposed to be narrating, I will change terms and grammar, though -- for instance, when referring to a hypothetical situation, one is supposed to say "If I WERE going to go to to the store . . . " but many people say "If I WAS going to go to the store . . . " I have two narrators in my first book, a very young woman and a very old man. The young woman says "was" and the old man says "were." I doubt anyone would notice that but me, but I felt each narrator would use grammar differently. The old man is very proper while the young woman is looser, more casual.

However, unless there's a darn good reason to change it, I like to see proper use of the language as well, and I will judge a writer and a book based on that.   (Grumpy Nazi face!)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

melbatron said:


> I feel your Grammar Nazi pain.
> 
> Depending on who's supposed to be narrating, I will change terms and grammar, though -- for instance, when referring to a hypothetical situation, one is supposed to say "If I WERE going to go to to the store . . . " but many people say "If I WAS going to go to the store . . . " I have two narrators in my first book, a very young woman and a very old man. The young woman says "was" and the old man says "were." I doubt anyone would notice that but me, but I felt each narrator would use grammar differently. The old man is very proper while the young woman is looser, more casual.
> 
> However, unless there's a darn good reason to change it, I like to see proper use of the language as well, and I will judge a writer and a book based on that.  (Grumpy Nazi face!)


Young people who have been around people who speak properly tend to do so because that's what they've heard. I think background and education probably tell more than age in grammar usage. They would probably use different slang though.

ETA:


Greer said:


> According to Merriam-Webster, the use of 'alright' has been around since 1887.


Being around and being accepted as standard English are totally different things. Ain't had widespread use in the 18th Century, but it still isn't standard English either.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

There's a few things going on here. One is the same old prescriptive vs descriptive linguistics argument, another is people thinking style guides are objectively right rather than simply suggestions, and people thinking that what they grew up hearing is right. Wasn't there a thread in the last few days about a Wall Street Journal article that offended a poster's sense of conjugation and to a person every one of the respondents had never heard of the OPs preference, but grew up hearing it the way the WSJ wrote it in the article?

Also, this...


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular.


What is a "pronoun" and what is a "gender-neutral singular"? I recently found out what an "adverb" is thanks to one of several hundred Stephen King threads.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> ETA: Being around and being accepted as standard English are totally different things. Ain't had widespread use in the 18th Century, but it still isn't standard English either.


According to MW, 'It is less frequent than _all right_ but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue...' Seems accepted to me.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

For several years in South Africa I have heard aswell as a single word, with the emphasis on the *as*. "Would you like water aswell?" Fortunately I haven't yet seen it in written form


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Being around and being accepted as standard English are totally different things. Ain't had widespread use in the 18th Century, but it still isn't standard English either.


But there's a difference between ain't and alright. Ain't is a contraction that doesn't contract two real words. So it can never be standard.

Alright is a combination of 'all right'. Just like altogether, already, and always were once not acceptable, the use of alright is becoming more acceptable as time goes on. Only a matter of time until it's standard usage.

Languages evolve, but it's a slow process. It's not black and white where a word is unacceptable one day and standard the next. Alright is definitely in the gray area at the moment. Some dictionaries list it as nonstandard, while others label it as informal.

And the reason it's used so much is because both writers and readers understand there is a difference in meaning between 'all right' and 'alright', just like the difference between 'all ways' and 'always'.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I think we have two separate conditions to consider relative to fiction. One being third person narrative where I feel the language should error on the side of being more formal (excluding head hopping). The other, however, is first person and dialog - both of which are coming from an individual and their life experience. Nothing irritates me more than seeing dialog written as formal rhetoric. People don't talk that way (in general) and certainly don't think that way.
> 
> It's unrealistic and diminishes any previously established character development. People talk in contractions and with 'improper' vocabularies - they just do.
> 
> If I'm reading a book about an uneducated rural MC from the deep south and it's written in 'proper' English, I won't finish it. The author failed at characterization 101. I can overlook typos, questionable grammar and even suspend disbelief at the most outrageous situations, but I can't forgive inconsistent characterization.


While I agree, it's important to remember that when it comes to patterning dialogue after real life, a little bit goes a long way. (Unless your name is Mark Twain.) If , for example, you attempt to always phonetically spell out how someone would speak with a strong southern accent, you would only succeed in distracting the reader and pulling them out of the story.

Because, ultimately, the goal of dialogue isn't to mimic real life conversation. The goal is to develop character, impart information to the reader, and move the plot forward.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## SherlockEditing (Feb 10, 2014)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I think we have two separate conditions to consider relative to fiction. One being third person narrative where I feel the language should error on the side of being more formal (excluding head hopping). The other, however, is first person and dialog - both of which are coming from an individual and their life experience. Nothing irritates me more than seeing dialog written as formal rhetoric. People don't talk that way (in general) and certainly don't think that way.
> 
> It's unrealistic and diminishes any previously established character development. People talk in contractions and with 'improper' vocabularies - they just do.
> 
> ...


I think your 2 cents make good sense. Style Manuals exist to help with consistency whether that be within one book or over many. Lots of style manuals offer rules in some areas and suggestions in others. That being said, style is just that. And in the end, if an author has a strong sense for what should be, that should be respected.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

swolf said:


> But there's a difference between ain't and alright. Ain't is a contraction that doesn't contract two real words. So it can never be standard.
> 
> Alright is a combination of 'all right'. Just like altogether, already, and always were once not acceptable, the use of alright is becoming more acceptable as time goes on. Only a matter of time until it's standard usage.
> 
> ...


Ain't most certainly is a contraction. It's the only word that contracts three words: are, is, and not. Probably should have another apostrophe, but that's silent.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Catchy said:


> If you use a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular. Not in posts, and casual conversation, but in writing that has plenty of time for editing and it's consistent. I hate that this is becoming accepted.


Not only is that useage _correct_, but it was absolutely standard in the time of Shakespeare and Chaucer before someone ruined English for everyone:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-you-didnt-realize-english-language-defective/


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

swolf said:


> While I agree, it's important to remember that when it comes to patterning dialogue after real life, a little bit goes a long way. (Unless your name is Mark Twain.) If , for example, you attempt to always phonetically spell out how someone would speak with a strong southern accent, you would only succeed in distracting the reader and pulling them out of the story.
> 
> Because, ultimately, the goal of dialogue isn't to mimic real life conversation. The goal is to develop character, impart information to the reader, and move the plot forward.


Did we try to read the same book last week? I ran across a book like that. The author purposely misspelled and overdid one character's accent and speech pattern. Everyone else had very proper English but this one character was stereotyped. I did not finish the book because it was just awful. Uncle Remus she weren't.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

vrabinec said:


> It's the only word that contracts three words: are, is, and not.


No, it doesn't contract three words, because no one says "I are is not going to the store." It's used for both the contraction of 'are not' and 'is not', among others.

And there are double contractions for three words. They're used more in speech than writing, but they're legit.

"If I knew you were going to be here, I'd've brought the papers for you to sign."
"I couldn't've known she was really a man in drag."
"I wouldn't've thought it was a problem."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_double_contractions


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

AngryGames said:


> Then I ranted about how English is possibly the stupidest language ever created and so on and so forth, which made all of my foreign friends happy haha. It's the only language I am fluent in, for the record. And it's still the dumbest language ever created.


Trying to write a story in 'correct' English is like trying to build a house with a hammer that occasionally transforms into a swarm of biting flies.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

WHDean said:


> I don't know where you got the idea that "we" use CP-only CP uses CP. The official style manual for the federal government is _The Canadian Style_, which is published by Public Works (available free on-line). All the university presses and commercial Canadian presses I know of use Chicago along with a style sheet of exceptions.


"We"...I write for several universities, magazines and newspapers. They all use Canadian Press. All publications will have an additional list that might vary from the standard. Back in the 1980s they were attempting to change harbour to harbor, but if you were referencing Halifax Harbour, it had to keep the u. It got complicated. Can. Press has gone back to harbour with the u, it appears.

Dalhousie uses Can. Press online: http://www.dal.ca/webteam/web_style_guide/editorial_style_guide.html

Carleton seems to use the Oxford Dictionary and Canadian Press Stylebook http://newsroom.carleton.ca/wp-content/files/writing-style-guide.pdf

There is also a few business styles around that larger corporations use.

I would suspect that Canadian book publishers using Chicago do so because they have that audience, and that their list of in-house usage is reflective of Canadian Press, since that's what all major news outlets follow and most people are familiar with.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

I think any publication — book, magazine, newspaper, whitepaper, website, needs to adopt some reference as the last word, then develop its own style based on that.

Maybe they don't spell harbour with a u in America, but if your publication is about Canada or for a Canadian audience, you can use the u. Then of course, you have to consider the internet and if online readership will include Americans who will be using harbour as a search term without the u.

It gets complicated.

I still hate "they" being used as a singular. And '80's being used when it's not possessive. Both always break my reading and I have to stop, look again, analyze.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

kathrynoh said:


> Different peeve but it's driving me nuts because I see it so often, is when the writer has speech followed by an action by another character, not the speaker. Confuses the hell out of me as a reader.


Same here. I think this is the only thing mentioned on the thread for which I have a hard line. New paragraph, please.

What about characters who smirk? To me, smirking indicates the character is a bad guy. Good guys get one smirk, if it fits the context.



cinisajoy said:


> I ran across a book like that. The author purposely misspelled and overdid one character's accent and speech pattern. Everyone else had very proper English but this one character was stereotyped.


Stuff like that is just embarrassing to read. It always seems to be aimed at Southerners (black or white), too. I say "aimed" because when I've seen character speech like this, that character is usually meant to be humorous, as in let's all laugh at the ignoramus. It comes off that way even if the author didn't intend it, which is kind of damning.

I had to put down a book because the female protagonist and her gay male friend went to a dance. Her friend had just started a relationship, and the other man _helped his new lover primp to go out with someone else_. He was perfectly okay with being shuffled off to the sidelines and staying home by himself waiting. Clearly the gay people were just added for flair. Ewwwwww.

As for singular they, serial commas, alright, ain't, and the subjunctive, I do what I want!

Here's what _The Chicago Manual of Style_ says about their rules:


> As always, most Chicago rules are guidelines, not imperatives; where options are offered, the first is normally our preference. Users should break or bend rules that don't fit their needs, as we often do ourselves.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

I just want to add, that the Oxford Dictionary we use is the Canadian version.

Although, the online version (I can't tell if this is defaulting to Canadian or not. It does not appear to be to me) does not use an apostrophe before MP:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mp?q=mp

*noun
(plural MPs)

a Member of Parliament: more than 80 MPs have signed the Commons motion*


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Sandra K. Williams said:


> What about characters who smirk? To me, smirking indicates the character is a bad guy. Good guys get one smirk, if it fits the context.


Bad guys sneer.
Antiheroes, imps and deadpan snarkers smirk.
Heroes grin roguishly.


----------



## soyfrank (Feb 2, 2011)

It's interesting how people keep offering the works of Chaucer and Shakespeare as examples of "standards" in the English language. Neither of these writers, separated by almost two centuries, had access to any kind of dictionary, let alone some manual of standard spelling, meaning or usage of English. Chaucer and Shakespeare not only invented or introduced thousands of words, they seemed to spell words however they wanted to at the moment -- and so did the scribes who transcribed their works. Shakespeare even changed the spelling of his own name many times.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Sandra K. Williams said:


> Stuff like that is just embarrassing to read. It always seems to be aimed at Southerners (black or white), too. I say "aimed" because when I've seen character speech like this, that character is usually meant to be humorous, as in let's all laugh at the ignoramus. It comes off that way even if the author didn't intend it, which is kind of damning.


This particular character was supposed to be a South Texas Mexican. I know they pronounce some words differently but that was way too overdone.

Why do some authors think it is ok to be stupid about southerners and Texans?


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Not only is that useage _correct_, but it was absolutely standard in the time of Shakespeare and Chaucer before someone ruined English for everyone:
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-you-didnt-realize-english-language-defective/


Popped back in to say this.

Also: http://www.writing-skills.com/grammar/hit-or-myth-singular-%E2%80%98they%E2%80%99-is-wrong/


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

soyfrank said:


> It's interesting how people keep offering the works of Chaucer and Shakespeare as examples of "standards" in the English language. *Neither of these writers, separated by almost two centuries, had access to any kind of dictionary, let alone some manual of standard spelling, meaning or usage of English.* Chaucer and Shakespeare not only invented or introduced thousands of words, they seemed to spell words however they wanted to at the moment -- and so did the scribes who transcribed their works. Shakespeare even changed the spelling of his own name many times.


This is _why_ they were great. They didn't sweat the high school english BS and just wrote/stole good stories.


----------



## Flopstick (Jul 19, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> This is _why_ they were great. They didn't sweat the high school english BS and just wrote/stole good stories.


Absolutely. My WiP involves writing pages of cod-Elizabethan journal entries, and it's huge fun being able to prat around with spelling or just invent words where necessary. (On which topic, if anyone knows of a good Elizabethan editor, do please message me!)


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

What are you guys talking about?


----------



## josephdevon (Feb 6, 2014)

SandraMiller said:


> I totally get you (that's one of my peeves as well) More than that, the Oatmeal gets you too (warning--a bit of language and some possibly offensive humor herein):
> 
> http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally


So you're making a stand for using words exactly as they are defined.

Are you willing to put your entire vernacular up to this test? Is every word you write and speak used in exactly the correct way?


Not to mention...I mean the word has literally been defined both ways since 1903. I agree with the argument about using it to produce the largest effect. That's our job as writers. But I don't understand taking umbrage at others who use the other definition. That's it's definition! From the OED no less...nobody is doing anything wrong.


----------



## josephdevon (Feb 6, 2014)

Flopstick said:


> ....and it's huge fun being able to prat around with spelling or just invent words where necessary.


(I make up words all the time and it's fun no matter what the genre...shhhhhh)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Flopstick said:


> Absolutely. My WiP involves writing pages of cod-Elizabethan journal entries, and it's huge fun being able to prat around with spelling or just invent words where necessary. (On which topic, if anyone knows of a good Elizabethan editor, do please message me!)


Neither Shakespeare nor Chaucer 'pratted around". They used language that was standard at the time. If you are going to write Elizabethan English, you don't just make it up or you risk looking like... a prat.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> Neither Shakespeare nor Chaucer 'pratted around". They used language that was standard at the time. If you are going to write Elizabethan English, you don't just make it up or you risk looking like... a prat.


'Puke' would like a word with you, along with all the other words Shakespeare pulled directly out of his bum and roundhouse kicked into the people's collective brainpans.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Heroes grin roguishly.


Just the ones with the flowing golden locks. 



cinisajoy said:


> Why do some authors think it is ok to be stupid about southerners and Texans?


Maybe they are just [whatever] about people who sound different from them.

A digression: I'm in California. We hosted an exchange student from Spain. We were out in public somewhere where she heard a family speaking American Spanish, and she complained they didn't speak Spanish properly.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Sandra K. Williams said:


> Just the ones with the flowing golden locks.
> 
> Maybe they are just [whatever] about people who sound different from them.
> 
> A digression: I'm in California. We hosted an exchange student from Spain. We were out in public somewhere where she heard a family speaking American Spanish, and she complained they didn't speak Spanish properly.


One of my friend's mom spoke Columbian Spanish. When she got wound up no one could understand her. Our friend that speaks true Spanish has trouble sometimes understanding tex-mex.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

OK. Judge.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Drew Smith said:


> I held out for so long but I've got to add my most hated one:
> 
> George smirked smugly. Becky grew increasingly uncomfortable. Her eyes fell to the table.
> 
> ...


This is Discworld levels of willful literalism.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I don't like the way people use anymore as two words in sentences such as "I don't go there any more", when it should be one word. Of course, its okay when its used as a quantifier (I can't eat any more bread), but when its used as the adverb it should be one word.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Catchy said:


> "We"...I write for several universities, magazines and newspapers. They all use Canadian Press. All publications will have an additional list that might vary from the standard. Back in the 1980s they were attempting to change harbour to harbor, but if you were referencing Halifax Harbour, it had to keep the u. It got complicated. Can. Press has gone back to harbour with the u, it appears.
> 
> Dalhousie uses Can. Press online: http://www.dal.ca/webteam/web_style_guide/editorial_style_guide.html
> 
> ...


You're confusing university _communications/marketing _departments--the people who produce ads, website content, and press releases for universities--with university _presses_ and commercial presses--the people who produce fiction and non-fiction books and journals in Canada. The latter do not use CP. Journals use the disciplinary guides (MLA, APA, AMA), university presses use disciplinary guides or the CMS (e.g., look at the McGill-Queen's University Press website: they stipulate CMS style), and commercial publishers use CMS.



johnlmonk said:


> What are you guys talking about?


I was wondering that myself...


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Perhaps rather than qualifying and defining every word, when lots of people are just jumping in without following the different conversations, you could just point me to the actual place in an acceptable manual or version of the Oxford Dictionary where it says:


3) 80's is to be used as opposed to 80s, even when it's not possessive. 2) MP's is to have an apostrophe even when it's not possessive. 3) Plural pronouns are okay to use as a singular, non-gender.


Everyone keeps arguing, but I'm the only one citing examples with sources, and when my examples back up my point, people seem more interested then in derailing the topic. Forget all the arguing, just list the recognized style manuals and dictionaries that say these things are okay.

Then we can discuss variations between countries, exceptions to the rules, etc..


----------



## Matt Ryan (Nov 16, 2012)

_Can_ I join in?


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Would the Merriam-Webster Dictionary suffice for 'their' as a singular pronoun? Here's a screencap...


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

*Here's what I found regarding 80's versus '80s and MPs versus MP's:*

1. Chicago Manual of style: using it in example. No apostrophe before S in years:

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Numbers/faq0001.html
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/PossessivesandAttributives.html

2. Caps and Spelling (The Canadian Press) page 130: MPs, no apostrophe.
3. Oxford Dictionary: MPs, no apostrophe. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mp?q=MP#MP

*They as a singular gender-neutral*

1. Oxford Dictionary has a good blurb on it: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they?q=they 

2. *EXCELLENT* blurb about this, citing several references for and against using plural pronouns as gender-netureal singulars: http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/favart/index-fra.html?lang=fra&lettr=indx_titls&page=9mtUeINzyZ1E.html about the CMS it says: _*Chicago Manual of Style:* Recommended embracing ST in 14th edition... recanted in 15th and now 16th editions, which both say ST is considered unacceptable in formal writing..._ There's more to that quote that sort of argues for its use, but I didn't want to post too much of it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I don't think 'formal writing' means what you think it does.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

During that research one of the writers I discovered pointed out that using he or she disregards people who do not identify as either. I think that's an excellent point and I'd be more than willing to relax my views on that in the name of inclusion.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

I edit for me, not for my audience. If they like me, and the way I like to write, great. If not, that's okay.

Judge all you want. I don't care. I can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time, so I might as well please myself. (Uh...that didn't come out right.)


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> I edit for me, not for my audience. If they like me, and the way I like to write, great. If not, that's okay.
> 
> Judge all you want. I don't care. I can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time, so I might as well please myself. (Uh...that didn't come out right.)


I write the story for me, but the packaging is for the audience; that would include layout, design, style editing to some extent, etc.. However, I don't usually write fiction, so it's a little different for me. I'm writing my first fiction now and it's mostly first person so far. I'm only a few chapters in to the actual writing. The outline keeps growing on its own.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

What pisses me off is the misuse of "it's" and "its," because you have no idea how many grown adults manage to mess that one up. I've even seen them used incorrectly in a publication of the Princeton Review.


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

AA2014 said:


> What pisses me off is the misuse of "it's" and "its," because you have no idea how many grown adults manage to mess that one up. I've even seen them used incorrectly in a publication of the Princeton Review.


In a job I had, I was typing something for someone else and wasn't really supposed to edit anything, so what was written was what was sent, and in three places that person wrote "injured rotator cup." Probably wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't a healthcare professional. I see they're/their/there confusion all the time.

I once had someone write me about doing a book cover and sent the title of the book, "A Lamens Guide to..." I wasn't sure what to do about that so I gently asked if he meant "A Layman's Guide to..." and he went crazy firing off e-mails to me, calling me all sorts of things. And I PROMISE I was as nice as pie. I said something about spell check changing words.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

I lament what has become of two very serviceable words because of ignorance: the words _snigger_ and _niggardly_. David Howard, head of the Office of Public Advocate for D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams was actually forced to resign over using the latter of those two words to describe his office's miserly administration of a particular fund. It seems that people demanded that he resign his position and apologize for THEIR ignorance.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

GearPress Steve said:


> I lament what has become of two very serviceable words because of ignorance: the words _snigger_ and _niggardly_. David Howard, head of the Office of Public Advocate for D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams was actually forced to resign over using the latter of those two words to describe his office's miserly administration of a particular fund. It seems that people demanded that he resign his position and apologize for THEIR ignorance.


I remember when that happened. That was stupid.  Maybe I'll use one of the words in my next work, in a stealth movement to bring back the perfectly-acceptable words.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I've never heard of anyone having an issue with snigger.

On the other hand, 'niggardly' is not a word any meat-based humanoid had used for at least fifty years before that guy used it, at which point it became the favorite word of every closet racist to 'prove' that political correctness had gone mad, so it was time to let them call us the N-word again.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> On the other hand, 'niggardly' is not a word any meat-based humanoid had used for at least fifty years before that guy used it


Well, that's certainly not true. It was a frequently used word of mine since high school in the 1970's.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The next obvious question: Are you sure you are not silicone based? Because there's no reason a high school student should know that word except by accident, the same way they might know the word 'uvula'.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> The next obvious question: Are you sure you are not silicone based? Because there's no reason a high school student should know that word except by accident, the same way they might know the word 'uvula'.


Actually, expanding my vocabulary was a hobby of mine as a teenager. Not only did I know and use the word uvula, but I knew and used the word obsequious in an eighth grade term paper.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> I held out for so long but I've got to add my most hated one:
> 
> George smirked smugly. Becky grew increasingly uncomfortable. Her eyes fell to the table.
> 
> ...


If you haven't read _Pet Peeve_ by Piers Anthony. He uses so many of these idioms, often literally, to wonderful comic effect.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

Catchy said:


> In a job I had, I was typing something for someone else and wasn't really supposed to edit anything, so what was written was what was sent, and in three places that person wrote "injured rotator cup." Probably wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't a healthcare professional. I see they're/their/there confusion all the time.
> 
> I once had someone write me about doing a book cover and sent the title of the book, "A Lamens Guide to..." I wasn't sure what to do about that so I gently asked if he meant "A Layman's Guide to..." and he went crazy firing off e-mails to me, calling me all sorts of things. And I PROMISE I was as nice as pie. I said something about spell check changing words.


That's hilarious, except of course you being scolded over the internet by a stranger. Haha. I'm trying to think of other examples, but I can't seem to think of any this late at night. I'm sure one could peruse Yahoo! News article comments or YouTube comments for examples, albeit they're quite intelligence-crushing.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> The next obvious question: Are you sure you are not silicone based? Because there's no reason a high school student should know that word except by accident, the same way they might know the word 'uvula'.


You're assuming high-school students don't read or have substantial vocabularies. I can't remember when I first came across the word niggardly, but I guarantee it was a number of decades ago.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Catchy said:


> In a job I had, I was typing something for someone else and wasn't really supposed to edit anything, so what was written was what was sent, and in three places that person wrote "injured rotator cup." Probably wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't a healthcare professional. I see they're/their/there confusion all the time.
> 
> I once had someone write me about doing a book cover and sent the title of the book, "A Lamens Guide to..." I wasn't sure what to do about that so I gently asked if he meant "A Layman's Guide to..." and he went crazy firing off e-mails to me, calling me all sorts of things. And I PROMISE I was as nice as pie. I said something about spell check changing words.


Funny stories. In the second example, I think I might have feigned ignorance and said "I'm not familiar with the term 'lamens guide,' can you send me the wikipedia definition of _lamen_?" (Or.... it would be funny if he meant _leman_.  )


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Jena H said:


> You're assuming high-school students don't read or have substantial vocabularies. I can't remember when I first came across the word niggardly, but I guarantee it was a number of decades ago.


I'm assuming high school students shouldn't be aware of anachronistic words that have no business having survived into the modern age.

Of course, now they _all_ know it because 'niggardly' is the sound racism makes upon achieving sexual release.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> The next obvious question: Are you sure you are not silicone based? Because there's no reason a high school student should know that word except by accident, the same way they might know the word 'uvula'.


It used to show up regularly in high school vocabulary tests. SAT, ACT, etc. So did 'pusillanimous.' Both fell to more politically correct sensitivities.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

ChrisWard said:


> I don't like the way people use anymore as two words in sentences such as "I don't go there any more", when it should be one word. Of course, its okay when its used as a quantifier (I can't eat any more bread), but when its used as the adverb it should be one word.


Can't decide if you're joking or if this is an American usage. I sometimes see 'anymore' in forum posts and have always assumed the poster was in a hurry and missed the space bar. As far as I know, it hasn't found its way this side of the Atlantic - I'm going to build a wall to keep it out.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> Well, that's certainly not true. It was a frequently used word of mine since high school in the 1970's.


Seriously?


----------



## antares (Feb 13, 2011)

Sandra K. Williams said:


> Just the ones with the flowing golden locks.
> 
> Maybe they are just [whatever] about people who sound different from them.
> 
> A digression: I'm in California. We hosted an exchange student from Spain. We were out in public somewhere where she heard a family speaking American Spanish, and she complained they didn't speak Spanish properly.


My college soccer team (that is, _real_ football) included two Panamanians and one Mexican. Their dialects were so different that the Panamanians could not understand the Mexican when he spoke Spanish, and vice versa. To communicate, they had to speak English.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

That's a weird one. I'd much prefer "Her line of sight dropped to the table before her."

Anyway, I was reading just now and found this and it made me think. The author used the correct version, but so many people confuse the two or don't know of the other!

"He wasn't phased when he heard the slide of his enemy's gun."

Which, of course, should be "He wasn't fazed when he heard the slide of his enemy's gun."

Though up until I was 19, I was guilty of misusing the two, as well as peaked/piqued.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Drew Smith said:


> _Her eyes fell to the table?_


Gaze. Her _gaze_.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

That would be one wicked party trick.


----------



## Nicholas Andrews (Sep 8, 2011)

Maybe we should go the Final Fantasy IX route. Since there is no gender neutral singular English pronoun, the androgynous Quina Quin was referred to as "S/he" throughout the game's dialogue.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> The next obvious question: Are you sure you are not silicone based? Because there's no reason a high school student should know that word except by accident, the same way they might know the word 'uvula'.


My family used the word niggardly, so I learned it when I was a kid (and look at that gray hair.) It was always used to describe someone as being mean, cheap, and miserly. I had no idea until reading this thread that the word had become contentious. It took me to Wiki where I discovered some of its problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22

Learn something new every darn day!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

In the Nineties, some folks were complaining about manual labor. They said it was a sexist term.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

Drew Smith said:


> Like you, I didn't know things had changed on niggardly until I read this thread. I think being respectful of every group in a society is important, but sometimes I wonder if we go too far. I got hammered in an online group I was part of a few years ago for mentioning that I was going on a picnic. The person who was offended informed me that the term was racially insensitive and I should feel ashamed of myself. Sometimes an eating-a-meal-out-by-the-lake-on-a-blanket event is just that.


It's from a French word for eating outside (pique-nique.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picnic

A bunch of idiots from the Justice Dept. started circulating nonsense about it being racist, when nobody normal thinks it actually is racist. Yogi Bear may disagree, since he's not allowed to have picnic baskets, but other than that, we may all eat outside in relative safety.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I had no idea until reading this thread that the word had become contentious. It took me to Wiki where I discovered some of its problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22
> 
> Learn something new every darn day!


Me too. I have still heard people use it to mean cheap or miserly. Glad to know this because I could have easilyi used it in writing sometime.



> Like you, I didn't know things had changed on niggardly until I read this thread. I think being respectful of every group in a society is important, but sometimes I wonder if we go too far. I got hammered in an online group I was part of a few years ago for mentioning that I was going on a picnic. The person who was offended informed me that the term was racially insensitive and I should feel ashamed of myself. Sometimes an eating-a-meal-out-by-the-lake-on-a-blanket event is just that.


 Totally in the dark here. What else does one call having lunch that you packed in a basket out at the park?


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

On the false rumors about the etymology of picnic:

http://www.snopes.com/language/offense/picnic.asp

I'd never heard that controversy before.... Strange. I wish people wouldn't believe everything they hear/read.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

johnlmonk said:


> It's from a French word for eating outside (pique-nique.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picnic
> 
> A bunch of idiots from the Justice Dept. started circulating nonsense about it being racist, when nobody normal thinks it actually is racist. Yogi Bear may disagree, since he's not allowed to have picnic baskets, but other than that, we may all eat outside in relative safety.


And in fact, Yogi isn't even interested in picnic baskets. He's actually much more interested in pic-a-nic baskets.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

EC Sheedy said:


> Learn something new every darn day!


I heard a new word (new for me, anyhow) on "Law and Order: SVU" the other night. A worker at a all-female juvenile facility was trying to verbally put down one of the teenaged inmates and he called her a "slunt"... as in: "This slunt here was trying to..."

I assumed it was the writer's way of essentially getting the "c" word into the show (a word that even I, as a male, find incredibly offensive). But a quick Google search showed that the word existed before SVU.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

johnlmonk said:


> A bunch of idiots from the Justice Dept. started circulating nonsense about it being racist, when nobody normal thinks it actually is racist.


Incorrect. Some of the emails saying that claimed to be from the Justice Department, but surprisingly, the Justice Department doesn't email random people about what words are socially unacceptable.

Like the manual labor thing, this wasn't started by actual civil rights activists but by 'Southern Heritage' and proto-MRA groups as strawmen to rail against because they were RUL MAD that they couldn't be racist and sexist without consequence anymore.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

I will fight the punctuation fight as best I can--often losing a battle or two. Slippery stuff, punctuation.

But I'm fascinated--and a little nervous--about how the intent of a word can morph from it's original meaning into something else entirely, causing pain and ill-will in the process. I'll no doubt lose a battle or two there, too; unintentionally, yes, but with perhaps more damage accrued... (I tend to believe the Wittgenstein quote I have under my avatar.)

On a lighter note, there were a few chuckles about words and their meanings on this thread I found when I was researching the word "niggardly."

8 Racist Words you use every day: http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-every-day.html

(I always called my twin granddaughters Hooligans. Little did I know...)


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

EC Sheedy said:


> I will fight the punctuation fight as best I can--often losing a battle or two. Slippery stuff, punctuation.
> 
> But I'm fascinated--and a little nervous--about how the intent of a word can morph from it's original meaning into something else entirely, causing pain and ill-will in the process. I'll no doubt lose a battle or two there, too; unintentionally, yes, but with perhaps more damage accrued... (I tend to believe the Wittgenstein quote I have under my avatar.)
> 
> ...


Some fine hair-splitting in those "racist words" explanations. The only one that I think has any merit is "gyp," from gypsy. A lot of everyday, universally-accepted words have shady pasts, so I tend to keep my salt-shaker handy, for easy access to the proverbial 'grain of salt.'


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

One colloquialism that has started to bug the heck out of me is "these ones". The narrator on "How It's Made" actually used that one the other day, as in: "some of the ice cream cones are dipped in chocolate, these ones are also getting a shower of nuts".


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

"No no. Language must never change or evolve from the way I personally learned in school. Never mind that the language evolved into what I learned long before I was born, never mind that my teacher might have been wrong, or that they may have been teaching me their preferences as fact. And don't get me started on regional variations."

I just don't get a bunch of writers treating the English language as this monolithic, set in stone thing. 

Languages that don't change over time are called dead languages.


----------

