As in, doesn’t matter at all to you.
All of them, unless there’s need to be accurate.
“Y’all”
I will die on the hill that it’s more efficient and neutral than the alternatives.
For years I have said that y’all is the best thing to come out of the south.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
It’s “mop”
Not if you bring your thugs
Or like to flash
Fair
What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
Ending a sentence on a preposition :3c
Well what should I end them on?
Nice :D
Period AFTER the end of a quote.
My buddy Joe told me “I will live and die on this hill”.
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.
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.
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?".Isn’t that how it’s done in English (Traditional)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There’s places where a comma can cause psychic damage.
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.
In German that question is: Wie nennt man das?
Or literally: How does one call that?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.
informal contractions are simply informal just because. there’s no real reason to consider them informal or not standard other than arbitrary rules.
“You shouldn’t’ve done that.” “It couldn’t’ve been him!” “I might’ve done that if you asked.”
I think if I took it too far and said that all contractions are basically acceptable, y’all’d’n’t’ve agreed with me.
I use this one unironically lol
This looks aggressively welsh.
You all did not have
It would be “You all would not have” because “You all did not have agreed with me” doesn’t make sense.
And I understood it perfectly the first time, which makes it acceptable by my lights.
I’d’n’t’ve had a single issue with it. In fact, I quite enjoy multi-contractions
Isn’t formality itself a bunch of arbitrary rules? There’s rarely anything about any formality rule that makes the thing itself inherently more or less polite, the point is that choosing to follow those arbitrary rules communicates that you are (or aren’t) choosing to be formal about the thing. It’s like a giant tone marker for “respectfully”
I consider the arbitrary rules that we call formal English to just be the set of rules that lead to the most widely understood texts, so if you want to reach a broad audience, both across the world and across time, then keeping to those formal rules makes sense.
Y’all’d’n’t’ve is one of my favorites
This is the one that still ends up in my technical writing.
Passive voice is completely fine to use.
Not only is it fine, but it’s the most common (and i would say most correct) way to write scientific papers.
The tone of scientific papers is usually supposed to focus on the science, not the scientist, so you have “reagent A was mixed with reagent B”, not “I mixed reagent A and reagent B”.
An added bonus is that it prevents having to assign credit to each and every step of a procedure, which would be distracting. E.G., “Alice added 200 ml water to the flask while Bob weighed out 5 g of sodium hydroxide and added it to the flask”.
Who says it’s not?
(/s)
