# Grammar Pet Peeves... Revisited...



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Hey y'all! 

I have quite a few hang ups in life and several of those are grammar related. 

Since I've started reviewing some of your wonderful tomes, I've been exposed to one in particular: "comma and." 

Syria dislikes beets, wet socks, and comma ands.  

UGH! It just KILLS me!  

What are some of yours?


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

Looky, here Miss Syria, I like to use apostrophes, quotation marks, asterisks, semi-colons, colons, and commas indiscriminately throughout my work just to see if the reader is awake.  So, if, you: think; you" can't' handl-e it: best not complain or else* risk ^ being placed on ', my enemy list.  If you want a"; list of my’ enemies, just check ;the extinc/t spec,ies list.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Wow... That just made the inside of my head implode... Whoa...


----------



## Bonbonlover (Oct 17, 2010)

You may have learned that the comma before the "and" is unnecessary, which is fine if you're in control of things. However, there are situations in which, if you don't use this comma (especially when the list is complex or lengthy), these last two items in the list will try to glom together (like macaroni and cheese). Using a comma between _all the items in a series, including the last two_, avoids this problem. This last comma-the one between the word "and" and the preceding word-is often called the *serial comma* or the *Oxford comma*. In newspaper writing, incidentally, you will seldom find a serial comma, but that is not necessarily a sign that it should be omitted in academic prose.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Oh, I know it's a legit use of the comma, it just aint purty!  

Guess it's like some modern art, huh?


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Funny, the exact opposite bugs me.  If you use it for one item in a list, might as well use it for all items in a list.  I was taught this way, so it's what I'm used to.  I think the lack of comma makes it uuuugggggly.


----------



## 25803 (Oct 24, 2010)

Syria Says... said:


> Hey y'all!
> 
> I have quite a few hang ups in life and several of those are grammar related.
> 
> ...


Ah, the pesky serial comma. I never used to use them, but both of my traditional publishers use the Chicago Manual of Style as their style guide. Until the latest update, CMoS required the serial comma. I'm not sure if it still does or not, but both publishers still do. To me it seems a little old fashioned, but an author's gotta do what a copy editor says she's gotta do


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

This isn't quite a pet peeve, but this thread made me think of something that happened a couple of weeks ago. I teach school and a 25 year old teacher asked me to proof read something for him. One of the comments I made was that he needed to have two spaces at the end of every sentence, not one. He had _never heard of this in his entire life_. I thought I must be going crazy and was glad the 35 year old English teacher was as surprised as I was. I googled it and sure enough, this is going the way of the dodo. I am not down with this at all and will be putting two spaces after sentences until they pry that keyboard from my cold, dead hands...


----------



## Margaret (Jan 1, 2010)

drenfrow said:


> This isn't quite a pet peeve, but this thread made me think of something that happened a couple of weeks ago. I teach school and a 25 year old teacher asked me to proof read something for him. One of the comments I made was that he needed to have two spaces at the end of every sentence, not one. He had _never heard of this in his entire life_. I thought I must be going crazy and was glad the 35 year old English teacher was as surprised as I was. I googled it and sure enough, this is going the way of the dodo. I am not down with this at all and will be putting two spaces after sentences until they pry that keyboard from my cold, dead hands...


Please, say it isn't so!


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

My biggest pet peeve is using a plural verb after a singular noun - 'the couple are going to dinner.' No, no, no! ONE couple is one thing - singular. The couple *is* gong to dinner. This drives me absolutely crazy, and I fear that because it is becoming so common it will become correct. Makes my head hurt.

I also learned to put two spaces after a period, but that was before proportionally-spaced type when it was necessary for easy reading. Now it's no longer needed, and I worked very hard to switch to using only one space. Some programs actually change the two spaces you type to one!

Glee's Teenage Dream just came up on my iPod.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Another one is "bad" vs "badly"... My roomie, God bless her, NEVER uses those words properly. 

For example: last night she was telling me about her back pain and her trip to the doctor. "I kept telling him it hurt so bad..." and "I was hoping to get some pain medicine because it hurt so bad..." and "It's just that when I sit a certain way, my back hurts bad..." And every time she said it, I mentally corrected her and occasionally, I even had to physically restrain myself from correcting her. 

She's usually really great about heeding the corrections I make to her daily vocabulary, but I didn't think that her back pain story was an appropriate time to jump in and yell at her for driving me bonkers.  

One thing she HAS taken to heart is the proper usage of "well" vs "good". THANK GOD!


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

drenfrow said:


> This isn't quite a pet peeve, but this thread made me think of something that happened a couple of weeks ago. I teach school and a 25 year old teacher asked me to proof read something for him. One of the comments I made was that he needed to have two spaces at the end of every sentence, not one. He had _never heard of this in his entire life_. I thought I must be going crazy and was glad the 35 year old English teacher was as surprised as I was. I googled it and sure enough, this is going the way of the dodo. I am not down with this at all and will be putting two spaces after sentences until they pry that keyboard from my cold, dead hands...


Funny. My 70 y/o secretary would remove the second space from church bulletin articles when I put them there. She had taken some classes recently that suggested it for certain types of publications. And b/c with modern word processing software, the need isn't there because of the way they format the page, or something.

Oh well, I still "double tap" the space bar after a period.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I was reading "Rules of Prey" by John Sandford the other day, and he used a "should of" in a character's dialog.

My first reaction was that he was intentionally having the character use bad grammar, but then it appeared again, this time in a different character's speech.

Then again, "should of" should never be used to denote poor grammar by a character, because it sounds exactly like the correct phrase, "should've", and is therefore only a written error, not a spoken one.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

> One thing she HAS taken to heart is the proper usage of "well" vs "good". THANK GOD!


I'm glad she's learning to speak English good.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

swolf said:


> I was reading "Rules of Prey" by John Sandford the other day, and he used a "should of" in a character's dialog.
> 
> My first reaction was that he was intentionally having the character use bad grammar, but then it appeared again, this time in a different character's speech.
> 
> Then again, "should of" should never be used to denote poor grammar by a character, because it sounds exactly like the correct phrase, "should've", and is therefore only a written error, not a spoken one.


Yes! That drives me crazy. Would of, should of, could of. GAH!

Another one that gets me: If you would have told me about the sale, I would have bought one.
No, no, no. When did that become accepted usage? If you HAD told me about the sale, I would have bought one. I know professional (full-time) writers who do this, and I want to slap them.

^ this 'comma and' is grammatically correct!


----------



## mattposner (Oct 28, 2010)

English teacher here...

Confusing "their" and "there"...
Writing "to" instead of "too"...
Writing "u" instead of "you"

COMMA SPLICE!!

Just saying...


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

One of my grammer pet peeves is that I can't find the rule for using 'that'.

The sentence above is a perfect example.  It could also be written as:

One of my grammer pet peeves is I can't find the rule for using 'that'.

Is the 'that' required?  Is it incorrect?  Is it optional?  Is one way more formal than the other?  If someone could post the rule it would be a big help.

It comes up fairly often:

She told me that she was in love with me. -> She told me she was in love with me.

I never knew that he was my brother. -> I never knew he was my brother.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

My own rule (and it may be "wrong") is: if a sentence works without that, I usually leave it off. If it just sounds better with it in, I leave it in.


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

> My own rule (and it may be "wrong") is: if a sentence works without that, I usually leave it off. If it just sounds better with it in, I leave it in.


I use that same rule.

I start to twitch (badly) when a writer puts a comma after the dialogue where a period is needed: "I love your new coat," she smiled.


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

kcmay said:


> Yes! That drives me crazy. Would of, should of, could of. GAH!
> 
> Another one that gets me: If you would have told me about the sale, I would have bought one.
> No, no, no. When did that become accepted usage? If you HAD told me about the sale, I would have bought one. I know professional (full-time) writers who do this, and I want to slap them.
> ...


I should of knowed that, and acted it out on purpose. You know you are right about those funny sounding phrases like the one about the sale, but what about "For Sail!"? of "For Sell"? Posted on hugh lighted signs. Funny.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

LCEvans said:


> I use that same rule.
> 
> I start to twitch (badly) when a writer puts a comma after the dialogue where a period is needed: "I love your new coat," she smiled.


I've tried to smile words, and they just come out silent. How DO they do that?!


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

I go crazy when a writer uses an excessive amount of adjectives and adverbs. Please don't do it. Just say no. I realize words such as twinkly or azure or grimly can be seductive, but please restrict their use to once every one hundred thousand words. Er, I better go back and re-read my latest mss to see how badly I've broken my own rule.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

4Katie said:


> I'm glad she's learning to speak English good.


Yeah, hers is doing quite well for a Texan! HA! I'm one too...but ya don't hear me all speakin' a'fool!


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

You know, it doesn't help my writing any when I've spent the last 6 years pursuing a BA in English with a minor in history, and had to use MLA, APA, Chicago, and Turabian styles for my papers. It's really confusing trying to keep up with which style is which, and even the online style guide from Purdue is sort of confusing.

Anyway, in certain sentences, I would think you would have to use a comma before and, otherwise it would be a run-on sentence. Commas are a minor annoyance, as long as the grammar and spelling in the rest of the document is ok, in my opinion.

I was told that since we now type all of our work on a computer, we also don't need to do two spaces after a period now. The two spaces had something to do with how manual typewriters used to be, and when we went to electronic typewriters, the two space rule was thrown out.  

Anyway, whatever. We all have the rules our various teachers in our English classes taught us, so your mileage may vary.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Cliff Ball said:


> You know, it doesn't help my writing any when I've spent the last 6 years pursuing a BA in English with a minor in history, and had to use MLA, APA, Chicago, and Turabian styles for my papers. It's really confusing trying to keep up with which style is which, and even the online style guide from Purdue is sort of confusing.
> 
> Anyway, in certain sentences, I would think you would have to use a comma before and, otherwise it would be a run-on sentence. Commas are a minor annoyance, as long as the grammar and spelling in the rest of the document is ok, in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Ok...

A. I am legitimately afraid of the higher level courses because of the formatting rules...not necessarily the papers that I'll have to write. That's pretty sad, huh?

And B. I spit water on my keyboard when I read that bit about varying mileage... Thanks for the LOLz... I haz 'em!


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

Syria Says... said:


> Ok...
> 
> A. I am legitimately afraid of the higher level courses because of the formatting rules...not necessarily the papers that I'll have to write. That's pretty sad, huh?
> 
> And B. I spit water on my keyboard when I read that bit about varying mileage... Thanks for the LOLz... I haz 'em!


I don't blame you on the taking of higher level courses. The formatting rules seem to change every other year, and I went with what I used in papers from each semester as far as formatting, and I always ended up with a C because the citations and all that wasn't "correct." My final couple of semesters, I did it my way, since I figured I would get a C anyway. The Div II school I went to was more high strung about formatting rules than the Div 1 school (UNT) I'm currently attending for a 2nd BA. I'm glad I'm not going for a teaching certificate, all these moronic rules would (or do) annoy me.

You're welcome for the LOL


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Cliff Ball said:


> You know, it doesn't help my writing any when I've spent the last 6 years pursuing a BA in English with a minor in history, and had to use MLA, APA, Chicago, and Turabian styles for my papers. It's really confusing trying to keep up with which style is which, and even the online style guide from Purdue is sort of confusing.


Go Boilers!

Anyway. Working on a Master's and we use Turabian, which is really a subset of Chicago. Then the school has its own supplement, which changes each time Turabian issues a new edition. I took what is basically an "intro to grad studies" course that required a paper where we found, and cited (correctly) pretty much every source that could be found from the 20th and 21st centuries on whatever subject we picked. Ouch.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Oh, and BTW, I just purchased the latest edition of Turabian on my Kindle, and it DOES, in essence, allow for citing Kindle books.  Take that, kindle detractors!

I guess I can't leave "that" out of "that" sentence.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

What the heck is Turabian?!   (I meant to ask this question all befuddled yesterday...) 

My gawd! Can't we just use one standard...? Since that would make it, I don't know, STANDARD?! Yeesh... Might make it too easy...

Awesome about being able to cite Kindle books! Yessssssssssss!


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Syria Says... said:


> What the heck is Turabian?!  (I meant to ask this question all befuddled yesterday...)


A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers

We had to use her manual to write a full, dissertation-style research paper in my freshman year of college and got 'dinged' for any misplaced periods. The manual tells you where to put every last one, as well as how many spaces are needed for each area of a cover sheet and other such details.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Syria Says... said:


> What the heck is Turabian?!  (I meant to ask this question all befuddled yesterday...)
> 
> My gawd! Can't we just use one standard...? Since that would make it, I don't know, STANDARD?! Yeesh... Might make it too easy...
> 
> Awesome about being able to cite Kindle books! Yessssssssssss!


Turabian is _A Manual for Writers of Research Papers_ that is a "condensed" version of Chicago style that focuses on how to cite different sources in academic writing.


----------



## cc84 (Aug 6, 2010)

This thread makes me chuckle. I have some pet peeve's. One is teenage text speak. I have many people on Facebook that use it and it takes me half an hour to decipher what they are actually saying. My cousin and her friends are the worst, and they spell words wrong and because they dont know how to spell it they stop trying and they abandon the word half way through in the hope people will still get it.

Also people that post in forums
like this and they
dont write their sentence 
the whole way like i have above.
And i'm sorry if people on here
do it but i find it annoying


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Here's one that I'm seeing more and more of: misused apostrophes.

People are using them to make singular nouns plural (e.g. "The Smith's") or because they're convinced that all possessive forms require one, such as "it's" or "your's" or "their's."

:groans:


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

cc84 said:


> This thread makes me chuckle. I have some pet peeve's. One is teenage text speak. I have many people on Facebook that use it and it takes me half an hour to decipher what they are actually saying. My cousin and her friends are the worst, and they spell words wrong and because they dont know how to spell it they stop trying and they abandon the word half way through in the hope people will still get it.
> 
> Also people that post in forums
> like this and they
> ...


Gah! I hate the crap too! I read each line like I'm reading a poem or something...with an abrupt ending/interruption after each line. 

As for the LOL speak, I have mocked my friends to the point that they do NOT send me any emails or even texts written that way. It may have been a bit cruel on my part, but I felt that my sanity was more important than their "ur"s and "wut"s! HA! 

My best friend even commented to me the other day that since I had this whole review site thing up now, she was REALLY careful about proofreading her emails and making sure that she was using the proper words. Perhaps I've gone too far?! I think not... Mwuahahahaha!  Knowledge is power (or something like that)!



Martel47 said:


> Turabian is _A Manual for Writers of Research Papers_ that is a "condensed" version of Chicago style that focuses on how to cite different sources in academic writing.


Man oh man... College: it's not that it's hard, it's more that it's annoying. (Too many "it's"...?!) HA!


----------



## gazza34 (Nov 19, 2010)

English is not stuck in a time warp. It changes almost from day to day. 
I was reading a book by CH Rolph and he referred to his brother as a 'very gay person': that is light-hearted and happy. Nowadays it has other meanings. 
Bernard Shaw wrote a play set in a cowboy saloon (honest) which he called 'The Shewing up of Blanco Posnet' because at the time 'shewing' was a correct alternative spelling. 
When personal computers first came out the chief sub (rewrite in the US?) on the Sydney Morning Herald insisted on the spelling 'discette' so we used disk instead. It was not until The Times used diskette as a word that the chief sub, Ron Adair, allowed it.
Dickens, from memory, average 47 words a sentence. On an Australian daily newspaper 21 is the limit and 15 is probably more like it.
The joy of the language is it is constantly changing. Shakespeare spelled his name seven ways that we know of. And none of them were Shakespeare.
The reason why English is such a joy lies much in its ever changing form. To learn how fast it is changing read 'Twitter'.

Gareth Powell in Australia where we speak a form and style of English. Colorful (either spelling is acceptable) and much given to slang. Should it be condemned for that reason? If you think that you can go and stick your head up a dead bear's bum.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

Martel47 said:


> Funny, the exact opposite bugs me. If you use it for one item in a list, might as well use it for all items in a list. I was taught this way, so it's what I'm used to. I think the lack of comma makes it uuuugggggly.


I agree. It's just wrong. I'm with the Chicago manual on this one, not the Associated Press. I don't write newspaper articles. I write fiction.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Damned dirty manuals... Get your stinking paws off my Engrish and citations!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

swolf said:


> One of my grammer pet peeves is that I can't find the rule for using 'that'.
> 
> The sentence above is a perfect example. It could also be written as:
> 
> ...


Whoohoo, I found the official rule! (or at least as official as the internet gets.)

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm



> Omitting That
> 
> The word that is used as a conjunction to connect a subordinate clause to a preceding verb. In this construction that is sometimes called the "expletive that." Indeed, the word is often omitted to good effect, but the very fact of easy omission causes some editors to take out the red pen and strike out the conjunction that wherever it appears. In the following sentences, we can happily omit the that (or keep it, depending on how the sentence sounds to us):
> 
> ...


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

While I agree with what Gazza wrote about English being an ever-changing language, I think this is an alarming thing. This change, which includes changes in definition, nuance, spelling, subtext, you name it, means that communication is becoming less and less precise. Ambiguity is not necessarily a healthy thing in the context of communication. If Person A says/writes something, and Person B interprets it in a way that Person A did not intend, I'd argue that that breakdown contributes to the overall decay of society. 

Er, bit of a rabbit trail there. That's probably grist for a brand new thread: Is Meaning Inherent in the Writer's Words or the Reader's Mind?


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Christopher Bunn said:


> While I agree with what Gazza wrote about English being an ever-changing language, I think this is an alarming thing. This change, which includes changes in definition, nuance, spelling, subtext, you name it, means that communication is becoming less and less precise. Ambiguity is not necessarily a healthy thing in the context of communication. If Person A says/writes something, and Person B interprets it in a way that Person A did not intend, I'd argue that that breakdown contributes to the overall decay of society.
> 
> Er, bit of a rabbit trail there. That's probably grist for a brand new thread: Is Meaning Inherent in the Writer's Words or the Reader's Mind?


I suppose it's better than "1984" and the devolution of the English language to phrases like "double plus good"... Yeesh!

And what happens if the reader has lost their mind?! Egads! And the writer had none to begin with?! Oh my! 

As for rules and such, perhaps one of you good people can explain how to properly use "who" and "whom" in a sentence. I could Google it, but...nah... It's far easier (and more entertaining) to ask you guys!


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

I took a History of the English Language class a few years back, and Old English is now so far removed from modern English that if you spoke to the guy who wrote the Canterbury Tales, you'd have to have a translator.  Same goes for Middle English anymore. 
Words have changed, meanings have changed, spellings have changed. One of these days, your kids or grandkids probably wouldn't even understand the original Shakespeare (unless it was in Klingon! lol) or the KJV Bible.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Syria Says... said:


> Another one is "bad" vs "badly"... My roomie, God bless her, NEVER uses those words properly.
> 
> For example: last night she was telling me about her back pain and her trip to the doctor. "I kept telling him it hurt so bad..." and "I was hoping to get some pain medicine because it hurt so bad..." and "It's just that when I sit a certain way, my back hurts bad..." And every time she said it, I mentally corrected her and occasionally, I even had to physically restrain myself from correcting her.
> 
> ...


One of the things I love about babysitting in my free time is that it's still socially acceptable to correct their grammar! It takes so much self-restraint to keep myself from doing the same to other adults.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

> As for rules and such, perhaps one of you good people can explain how to properly use "who" and "whom" in a sentence.


Who is a subject. Whom is an object.

I'm in favor of the serial comma. Better to have something you don't need than need something you don't have. It often eliminates ambiguity.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Cliff Ball said:


> I took a History of the English Language class a few years back, and Old English is now so far removed from modern English that if you spoke to the guy who wrote the Canterbury Tales, you'd have to have a translator. Same goes for Middle English anymore.
> Words have changed, meanings have changed, spellings have changed. One of these days, your kids or grandkids probably wouldn't even understand the original Shakespeare (unless it was in Klingon! lol) or the KJV Bible.


Old English is pretty incomprehensible -- hence we almost never read _Beowulf_ except in translation. . . .but middle English (Chaucer) is quite readable for many with just a little effort. I had a course in college and we read _The Canterbury Tales_ in the original. It was a bit confusing at first but after the first couple of weeks -- reading a bit everyday -- I found I almost never needed to look at the explanatory annotations at the bottom of the page.

Of course, there were many who got a modern 'translation' and read that instead or in addition. . . I think most were just lazy, but there were a couple who I know tried really hard and just couldn't figure out the original. So maybe it has to do with how your brain is wired.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Language changes.  It's not a matter of decline in any imaginable measure; it's a matter of vibrancy.  Language change is a positive thing, even if it does make some people hold onto some prescriptive rules of grammar for far too long.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Old English is pretty incomprehensible -- hence we almost never read _Beowulf_ except in translation. . . .but middle English (Chaucer) is quite readable for many with just a little effort. I had a course in college and we read _The Canterbury Tales_ in the original. It was a bit confusing at first but after the first couple of weeks -- reading a bit everyday -- I found I almost never needed to look at the explanatory annotations at the bottom of the page.
> 
> Of course, there were many who got a modern 'translation' and read that instead or in addition. . . I think most were just lazy, but there were a couple who I know tried really hard and just couldn't figure out the original. So maybe it has to do with how your brain is wired.


My senior year, I was absurdly lazy and took regular English instead of AP and I paid for it in a big way... When we read "The Canterbury Tales" and Shakespeare, I thought that I was in literary hell. Out of my class of about 28 students, maybe 3 got it. Which made us the lucky ones who got to read it aloud to everyone. Yay! :|


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

Kathelm said:


> Who is a subject. Whom is an object.


The easiest trick for knowing which to use is to substitute He or Him. If the sentence makes more sense to use 'he,' then use 'who.' If 'him' is the correct word, use 'whom.'

"You gave my Kindle to _whom_?"


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

kcmay said:


> The easiest trick for knowing which to use is to substitute He or Him. If the sentence makes more sense to use 'he,' then use 'who.' If 'him' is the correct word, use 'whom.'
> 
> "You gave my Kindle to _whom_?"


The problem with following the rules on 'whom' when writing dialogue, is that most people don't use 'whom' correctly when speaking, so when you use it, your characters come off as stilted and formal.

"Charlie, kill them all."
"Whom should I shoot first?"


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> Whoohoo, I found the official rule! (or at least as official as the internet gets.)
> 
> http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm
> 
> ...


Those two sentences look wrong to me and if I read them I'd chalk them up to errors / poor grammar.


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

> The problem with following the rules on 'whom' when writing dialogue, is that most people don't use 'whom' correctly when speaking, so when you use it, your characters come off as stilted and formal.


Yes. This drives me crazy. I have my characters speak the way that seems natural for their upbringing and educational level and sometimes (but rarely, I have to admit) I get called out for it by the grammar police:

"On page 12 Bubba Floyd Bob said, 'I ain't killing them critters unless I have to. Who do you want me to give the gun to?' You shouldn't use ain't and it's whom, not who."


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Can I post a non-writing pet peeve here? Just a little OT..

When I fly into a city, and take a Taxi, after giving the taxi driver the address I need to go to, having him ask ME for directions... WHAT THE (&^$%$#&%$# you moron this is YOUR city, not mine!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Those two sentences look wrong to me and if I read them I'd chalk them up to errors / poor grammar.


They are wrong. On the original web page the 'that's are printed in strikethrough font, but when I copied and pasted that font was lost.

I've edited my original post to put the strikethrough back in.


----------



## Rory Miller (Oct 21, 2010)

When I write fast I use then instead of than.  This really bugs me as I know the difference and always spot it when others do it... so after I write something I do a quick "find" search and check out every "then".  In my last book I used it incorrectly something like 30 times which really angers me!  I think I just get so carried away with writing the story that I write what I hear in my head, not how it should be written.  I always use "then" when I should use "than" and never the other way around.  Funny that way.

And yes, when I had a professor in my Master's class tell me the second space was unnecessary to start a sentence I was shocked.  I was even more shocked when every English teacher I asked said it was necessary.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

RorySM said:


> And yes, when I had a professor in my Master's class tell me the second space was unnecessary to start a sentence I was shocked. I was even more shocked when every English teacher I asked said it was necessary.


I thought I read all of the posts on this topic. Must have missed this one 

With the new fonts/printing quality, I thought that that second space is now unnecessary. When people cite having to hit space twice to get a period on their smartphones, what they're not noticing is that the phone actually places a period in that first space, so they're only getting one space in the end. (Yes, I was enough of a loser to test that out a few times.)


----------



## caseyf6 (Mar 28, 2010)

"Who" vs "That".

Correct:  The person who called me said it was an emergency.
Incorrect:  The person that (cringe) called me said it was an emergency.

People are "who" not "that".


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

caseyf6 said:


> "Who" vs "That".
> 
> Correct: The person who called me said it was an emergency.
> Incorrect: The person that (cringe) called me said it was an emergency.
> ...


I've always thought this too (and it grates on my ears too), but I asked an English teacher and she said it was also correct to use "that". Anybody know for sure?


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

You know, some of those correct versions seem to come naturally. As a lil' kiddie, I would notice when people were talkin' all incorrect-like. 

Even certain members of my extended family, my siblings and my peers commonly used words incorrectly and I never got in on the trend.  I always felt odd, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Still can't. Unless I'm doing it on purpose and making a point or speaking with a certain accent. (I'm southern, y'all! Sometimes ya just gotta TALK to tha' people!)

Some people call me a snob...but that's cool... I'd rather be a snob then a bad talker! HA!


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

> "Who" vs "That".
> 
> Correct: The person who called me said it was an emergency.
> Incorrect: The person that (cringe) called me said it was an emergency.
> ...





drenfrow said:


> I've always thought this too (and it grates on my ears too), but I asked an English teacher and she said it was also correct to use "that". Anybody know for sure?


I think it might be correct in this case, because 'person' is a thing. If someone's name was used, it'd be a who.


----------



## Asphodel (Jul 19, 2009)

I'm an English major and grammar nerd, so I have a lot of pet peeves. Including "Alot".

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

(Fair warning, although this particular entry on her blog is clean, others are NSFW so please use your best judgment.)

I feel obligated to try to speak and write correctly (and refrain from correcting others when they do not) but I am often guilty of comma splices.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

Asphodel said:


> I'm an English major and grammar nerd, so I have a lot of pet peeves. Including "Alot".
> 
> http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
> 
> ...


Oh...My...God... I got the LOLz so hard from that blog that I was alot crying at, around, and near work! Thank u for that! (That was painful to type...by the way...)


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

> I've always thought this too (and it grates on my ears too), but I asked an English teacher and she said it was also correct to use "that". Anybody know for sure?


As a college English teacher, I've always insisted on 'who' when referring to people. However, I did some research from my favorite grammar maven, and she was as surprised as I am to find out that 'that' is acceptable as well. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-that.aspx

Who knew?


----------

