As in, doesn’t matter at all to you.
I’m perfectly fine with pretty loosey-goosey interpretations of when to use semi-colons. I realize that there is a specific use-case, but in reality it’s just used for the most part as a sort of elongated comma; where the intention in the writing is to have a longer pause than a normal comma would.
And I’m absolutely fine with that. No one is really clear on the real semi-colon usage anyway. I’m relatively sure that the last sentance in the previous paragraph is the actual correct usage technically, but who knows? And more importantly, who cares?
aluminum
This is a correct spelling. Not the only correct spelling, but one of them
In Dutch you’re supposed to write “Volgens mij” (“in my opinion”), but it’s pronounced more like it’s one word. So I feel “volgensmij” flows better
volgens mei niet!
“Y’all”
I will die on the hill that it’s more efficient and neutral than the alternatives.
“Y’all” and the plural “all y’all” are part of my daily vocabulary. And I’m in no way of southern origin.
First we’re all like “Thou is too casual, gotta use the plural second person instead.” Then oh no, turns out number in pronouns is actually useful sometimes, but thou sounds old fashioned now, so we just gotta re-pluralize the second person. And then you get y’all.
I like y’all, but I almost wish we could just bring thou back.
For years I have said that y’all is the best thing to come out of the south.
Yinz is at least as efficient
I recently realized that w’all needs to be shakespeared too. Following the pattern of other languages, y’all and w’all are missing in English.
Also, I shakespeared the verb shakespeared, in reference to Shakespeare making up new words by following patterns among other words.
I won’t argue against w’all. I’m fine with it in principle. But it’s not something I think I’ve ever said, or ever heard anyone say.
Anything that is used colloquially but technically isn’t correct because some loser didn’t like it 200 years ago. To boldly keep on splitting infinitives is a rejection of language prescriptivism!
Singular they. I’ve had this opinion since long before I even knew about non-binary people. Using “he or she” to refer to a person without specifying gender is clunky as hell.
but singular they isn’t incorrect in the least. anyone claiming otherwise has some agenda to push in spite of the facts of it’s use for a good long while
It’s not, but with… Political views as they are, it’s gotten a lot of pushback. People don’t even realize they use it regularly.
“Someone called for you”
“What did they want?”
Bam. Easy. I was stoked when magic the gathering changed card wording from “he or she” to “they” because it cleans up the wording so much.
A good point I heard though is that singular “they” is used when you don’t know the person’s identity. To the extent that it could be multiple people involved, hence the use. Obviously, it’s at slight odds with “someone” in this example, but still.
Fun fact though, we do actually use “they” in that way in Polish, in old-fashioned military slang, like “Where’s private Kowalski? They were supposed to be here”. (Edit: I think that might be used when addressing them directly, so this might be a bad example, but then there is no version in English since “you” covers all genders and numbers) I don’t know if non-binary people here actually use it.
Political views as they are, it’s gotten a lot of pushback
Yeah, the comment above mixed up grammar nazis with actual nazis I guess.
Ending a sentence with a proposition is just fine. Picky people whom I’ve only seen parodies of on the Internet go “oh you ended your sentence with a preposition I have no idea what you mean by ‘He went in’ maybe you could explain what he went into? A jello mold? A ditch? What did go into?”
You asked if he went into the store and I said he went in, you know what I meant because of CONTEXT CLUES.
I’ve never met anyone who’s ever been this picky but I’m ready to bite them if I ever find one.
It’s not grammatically incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. It’s a common misconception that it is a rule, basically because one guy argued in favor of it back in the 1600s and had some support for formal writing in the 1700s. But it’s never been a broad rule, and even in formal contexts it’s not a rule in any current, reputable style or usage guides (so far as I know, at least).
Some more info on the topic: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with
I only know of this “rule” because of a joke.
A new student is looking for the library and stops a passing professor to ask, “Excuse me sir, can you please tell me where the library is at?” To which the professor responds, “Here at Harvard, we don’t end our sentences with prepositions.”
The student without missing a beat says “I’m sorry, can you please tell me where the library is at, asshole?”
(Not sure if I remember exactly how it should be written it, apologies if I got it wrong)
Did you mean to say, preposition instead of proposition?
I think that since you’re aware of typos and context clues you knew that was the case.
I think they are asking because many people don’t know the difference
I love to end my sentences with a proposition, you wanna fuck?
What makes that a proposition and not a simple question?
I’m really sick of people treating AAVE and other dialects like grammar mistakes, is what. Grammar Nazis indeed, protecting the purity of the English language.
I’m of the opinion that so long as it is understandable it does not matter. English was once written as it sounded and there was no spelling consistancy. Those who were literate had little issue with it.
Some related reading: https://ctcamp.franklinresearch.uga.edu/resources/reading-middle-english https://cb45.hsites.harvard.edu/middle-english-basic-pronunciation-and-grammar
Edit: Okay my rant is more related to spelling than grammar but still interesting.
All of them, unless there’s need to be accurate.
Period AFTER the end of a quote.
My buddy Joe told me “I will live and die on this hill”.
For me in American English it’s also the commas that go inside the closing quotation marks, even when they’re not part the original quote. I die a little every time I see this, so illogical.
If it’s not part of the quote, just leave it outside.
If the murky depths of my memories of school is correct, the location of the period is dictated by whether or not it is part of the quote. So, if the quote should have a period at the end, it goes inside the quotation marks. If the quote does not include the period (e.g. you are quoting part of a sentence), but you are at the end of a sentence in your own prose, you put the period on the outside of the quotation marks.
Absolutely. Anyone who has done any programming should recognize that changing what’s in the quote is corrupting the data.
If I’m quoting a question though, then it makes sense to include the question mark in the quote.
I laughed when Joe asked "That's the hill you chose?".So wait, you don’t care, or you think it should be done a certain way? OP asked what doesn’t matter to you at all.
Ugh, there should be one before AND after!
I hate how much I agree with you in principle and how ugly it looks in practice. With doubled periods, at least - different marks don’t trigger that same reaction. For example, a question mark inside, followed by a period or comma outside feels right.
So is this correct?
My buddy Joe told me. “I will live and die on this hill”.
My buddy Joe told me: “I will live and die on this hill.”.
imo.
You’re saying two separate sentences and they both need punctuation.
The whole thread and post is about not caring about minor errors, sure. And half the time we don’t add periods to the end of our text messages… but, it’s a quoted sentence. If we’re quoting, and you’re not going to use correct punctuation for one of the sentences, at least close the sentence within the quotations. Otherwise, why quote at all.
My buddy Joe told me that he’d live and die on this hill.
vs
My buddy Joe told me, “I will live and die on this hill.”.
It’s just easier not to quote unless is something specific, factual, and evidentiary… in which case you might as well go formal with it.
Isn’t that how it’s done in English (Traditional)?
It’s not a grammar mistake per se, but I feel like sharing it and it is close enough so here we go.
As a non-native English speaker: How can you have mob and vacuum the floor but not broom the room?! I know it doesn’t exist, but I don’t care. If we have to phrase it as a grammar mistake: I use verbalisations where they are uncommon.
I agree. I’m going to start brooming the room. Thank you for this insight.
It’s “mop”
Not if you bring your thugs
Or like to flash
Fair
While “broom the floor” isn’t common, “sweep the floor” is. Of course, why we use the tool name as a verb in the case of “mop” or “vacuum”, but not in the case of “broom”, is another case of English being English. But, you shouldn’t expect consistency out of English. It’s not really a language, it’s several languages dressed up in a trench-coat pretending to be one.
Using commas, wherever you want.
They should be logical thought breaks, not adhere to any rules of grammar.
I have to, take issue with this, one. The rules of commas are, pretty, easy actually: Use a, comma where you’d, pause when speaking. If, you read it out, loud and sound like Captain, Kirk then you put, a comma in the, wrong spot.
Found Christopher Walkin.
This one I’m so guilty of, it just seems fine when used in moderation, even if I know it’s wrong.
I’ve always just used them where natural breaks would be if the sentence was spoken. I know how it’s supposed to be used and I’ll do it correctly when writing papers, but it hurts inside to see it that way. I don’t understand how it improves comprehension.
I can’t read things comfortably with too many commas. My internal monologue stops at each if them.
I mean commas can be used specifically for pauses in speech
Right. Too many commas makes for too many pauses in speech.
There’s places where a comma can cause psychic damage.
Deliberately not capitalising proper nouns as a show of disrespect (countries, people, titles, etc). Not “grammatically correct” but I think it falls under freedom of expression.
A lot, to be honest. Spend enough time around non-native English speakers and you realise how little sense English makes. Their ‘mistakes’ have their own internal consistency and in a lot of cases make more sense than English does.
There are so many examples for this. Some that come to mind:
- “He has 30 years” instead of “He is 30 years old” (Spanish “Tiene 30 años”)
- “How do you call this?” instead of “What do you call this?” (e.g., French: Comment ça s’appelle? I think German too)
- “I’m going in the bus” instead of “I’m going on the bus”
- “She is more nice” instead of “She is nicer”
Apart from that, try explaining to a learner why “Read” (present) and “Read” (past) is spelled the same but pronounced differently.
Or plural (or do I capitalize that here? 🤔) inconsistencies: one “mouse,” two “mice”; but one “house,” two “houses.” To be fair, other languages do that stuff too.
The use of ‘in’ and ‘on’ for various vehicles in English is one that I always find interesting. Like you’re on a motorbike, or a boat, or a bus, but you’re in a car. Aeroplanes I think are kind of interchangeable.
Also the order of descriptive words for things is one I really find odd. “I’m on a big red old-fashioned London bus” = coherent sentence. “I’m in a red London big old-fashioned bus” = nonsense.
Apart from that, try explaining to a learner why “Read” (present) and “Read” (past) is spelled the same but pronounced differently.
Also how something like the word ‘jam’ can mean a fruit preserve, a door that’s stuck, traffic that’s not moving, playing music or cramming something into a hole lol.
In German that question is: Wie nennt man das?
Or literally: How does one call that?
