Notes on Grammar
by SFfaninNYC on Sep 7, 2006 1:15 PM PDT
Email
PrintThere's been a lot of chatter about grammar around here lately. I think it started when the "Plea to the McCoven" scolding went out, though I'm not entirely sure. One quick opinion: I think of Internet posting (and I'm excepting Grant from this because he's the author of the site) as being held to a different standard than the writing you might do for fun or professionally or whatever. So while I am a proud owner of an Oxford English Dictionary and always have a copy of "The Elements of Style" close by, i think it's absolutely OK to post in all lower case letters.
Anyway, I'm interested in grammar in general, and the influence of the Internet in particular. That was my first inspiration for this post. My second was a cheesy, team-building exercise where you take all the people in a room and ask them to name the presidents in order. There's never one person who can do all of them (although my dad could do it in 2 minutes or less) but if you let the people work together it's actually pretty easy.
So, I was thinking that all of us have one or two grammar rules that we remember, but you remember them in plain English, i.e. "a semicolon is usually between two things that could be standalone sentences," not "a semicolon attaches an indpendent clause to..." or whatever the exact rule is.
If everyone were to list their favorite grammar rule or rules, I bet we could get a pretty good list going. I'm thinking just your rules of thumb. Don't go pick up the grammar book just to look smart. (Such an exercise would have the added benefit of further distinguishing everyone as a total nerd.)
Here's one I remember from somewhere.
When using a colon, the first letter after the colon is lower case, unless what comes after the colon could be a sentence all by itself, in which case that first letter is capitalized.
Here's a news flash: This post is so lame that each and every MCCer should be forever embarrassed.
This is how I feel after posting this rubbish: forever embarrassed.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
275 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Notes on Grammar
- "Lose" has only one 'o'.
- "Ridiculous" does not have an 'e'.
- It's "would/could/should HAVE", not "would/could/should OF."
- I won't explain the whole their/there/they're thing. Just get it RIGHT, dammit.
- Interjecting a noun does not change the pronoun. For example, "we are going to the bar" does not become "us guys are going to the bar."
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Sep 7, 2006 1:38 PM PDT reply actions
All Involved With This Diary
by victor frankenstein on Sep 7, 2006 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: All Involved With This Diary
by non sequitur on Sep 7, 2006 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: All Involved With This Diary
by victor frankenstein on Sep 9, 2006 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
"It's" is the abbreviated form of it is.
My fifth grade english teacher had a piece of paper with an "a" on one side of the classroom and another piece of paper with a "lot" on the other side. "A lot," never "alot."
Use less when you can't count things, e.g. less time to work than I expected. Use fewer when it's known quantities "the Giants have fewer games to screw up as the season comes to a close..."
e.g. is "for example," i.e. is "in other words."
Quotes go around punctuation, e.g. He said, "I went to the store." She replied, "to the store?"
I am anal retentive ass. Enjoy.
Re: Notes on Grammar
by Brother Bummer on Sep 7, 2006 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Not to be picky, but...
Determiners
What you wrote (Or - more accurately - HOW you wrote what you wrote) could be rationalized grammatically with the addition of additional(From The Department Of Redundancy Department) capitalization.
I am ... Anal Retentive Ass.
This would serve to announce to the forcedly captive audience your true crimefighting identity.
But what is more widely accepted in literary circles is the use of a determiner, I.E.
I am AN anal retentive ass.
See? It's still declaratory, but now it's WHAT you are - not WHO you are.
P.S. I'm another. My pet peeve (Besides f'ing people who f'ing use f'ing in their f'ing sentences every f'ing chance they f'ing get) is the use of the word "good" as an adverb.
Sanchez pitched good.
And here's my own cutesy remedy for that gaffe...
Q: What's the difference between cookies and Jonathan Sanchez?
A: (Really a Q) Do cookies taste well or good?
They taste good. And Sanchez pitched well.
by victor frankenstein on Sep 7, 2006 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Determiners
Re: Determiners
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 7, 2006 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Determiners
Re: Notes on Grammar
"Quite right", he answered, "unless you're British, ducks".
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
Stadiums THAT suddenly change sponsors have marred the integrity professional sports.
Re: Notes on Grammar
WHAT's on Second.
I DON'T KNOW.....Third Base!
Stadiums that suddenly change to some OTHER vague abbreviated telecommunications sponsor make me say "WHO?".
by victor frankenstein on Sep 7, 2006 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Collective nouns are singular
Incidentally, quotes do not necessarily go around punctuation. Quotes go around punctuation if the punctuation can be said to be attached to the quote, which is the normal situation. However, if the punctuation is not attached to the quote, then the punctuation goes outside the quote.
Salemicus (excitedly): Todd Linden is amazing!
Salemicus said "Todd Linden is amazing!"
Salemicus: (matter of factly): Todd Linden is amazing.
The author thinks that's ridiculous.
Salemicus said "Todd Linden is amazing"!
Yes but...
...then I'm supposed to put the comma, which is not part of your statement, inside the quotes.
In British usage it goes outside, which just goes to show how arbitrary and pointless this particular rule is.
I would argue that both are equally comprehensible and neither has any aesthetic advantage over the other, so who cares?
I agree with you
Re: I agree with you
Re: Collective nouns are singular
should instead read:
(I.e. note the comma.)
And...
has too many colons. The first one is extraneous, because it otherwise implies that Salemicus is saying "matter of factly" (which incidentally is hyphenated "matter-of-factly" -- OK, I'm getting out of control here). You can simply say...
Better yet, you could italicize the parenthetical phrase, since the colon format is primarily used in scripts and not most other forms of writing.
Otherwise, spot on with the (un)quoted punctuation.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait, I'm confused:
Re: Notes on Grammar
As the author of the diary Plea to the McCoven, I would remind you it was a request (not a demand) and that nobody has been singled out or harped on. AND it was only one small part of a greater request. Additionally, I really meant the focus of the request to be diaries. Gameday threads are another animal entirely. Nobody is looking for, or expects, perfect grammar. However, it is nice to be able to understand what folks are saying since, in my opinion, most folk have an interesting perspective to add.
I find Garner's Modern American Usage to be the most useful grammar reference. Followed closely by _Modern Legal Usage- by Garner as well.
My top 5 annoyances:
1.) Irregardless
2.) Use of copyright as a verb.
3.) Comma splices [mea culpa]
4.) I could care less
5.) Tofu
One more annoyance
Re: One more annoyance
From Oxford....
literal 5 colloq. disp. so called with some exaggeration or using metaphor (a literal avalanche of mail).
The disp. means disputed, by the way. Using a word as the exact opposite of its real definition and thus rendering the word meaningless is "disputed." I would say "wrong" or "certainly not worthy of the Oxford dictionary," but I guess I'll have to settle for "disputed."
While we're at it, Oxford's second definition of "irony" may as well have been written by Alanis Morisette. My head literally exploded when I read that.
Ahhhhhh!
Re: Ahhhhhh!
Re: Ahhhhhh!
A copy*right* is a bundle of rights granted by the government. A person cannot grant his or her own copyright.
A person writes a book.
It is in common usage, but that doesn't make it right. I say ain't all the time, but you can't argue that
Re: Ahhhhhh!
But hey, I like tofu too.
Re: Ahhhhhh!
It isn't expressing something you can't express another way; it is stating something that is factually untrue.
There are plenty of people, perhaps a majority of the worlds population, who don't accept evolution as fact. It doesn't make them right. Of course, the use of copyright as a verb is far, far less damaging to society.
Re: One more annoyance
"Essentially" works just as well, sounds smarter, and is less likely to be taken issue with by jerks who have the usual complaints about the word "basically." (basically, by the by, is a practically useless argumentative tool that essentially trivializes and undercuts most arguments you might be trying to make).
Yes, "essentially" is the same exact kind of useless word... but it does sound smarter.
Also, there is no such word as irregardless, regardless of what anybody might tell you. If it were a word, it would by definition have to mean regard-full, and really....
by howtheyscored on Sep 7, 2006 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: One more annoyance
by howtheyscored on Sep 7, 2006 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
I was talking with the last great love of my life today, and she brought up that exact word!
by victor frankenstein on Sep 7, 2006 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
a nice fit, Nat
Most grammar rules are like training wheels...
Like complete sentences. Every sentence is supposed to have a subject and a verb. Why? If you are a competent writer, you can write sentence fragments that are perfectly understandable and often more aesthetically pleasing than the grammatically correct version.
Or not starting a sentence with a conjunction. Don't get me going on that. Also, you're not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. As Churchill said, "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."
Why are we not allowed to freely split infinitives? Because some grammarians decided that since Latin infinitives are a single word, English infinitives should be treated the same way. Makes no sense at all.
Trivia like whether punctuation goes inside of quotes or outside makes no difference. If it hadn't been flogged into us in school as a hard and fast rule, I doubt whether any of us would even notice whether a comma fell inside or outside of quotation marks.
As far as all-lower-case writing, and other stylistic idiosyncracies, some people can pull it off and others need to put the wheels back on. If your writing obscures your message too thoroughly, then readers are not going to bother wading through it.
Wellllll... yes and no, Elim
BUT, I think the key to useful grammar is one thing: CLARITY of the author's/speaker's thought. So, for example, the rule against splitting infinitives actually DOES serve a purpose by forcing the verb out earlier in the sentence so that the listener/reader doesn't have to keep a placeholder in mind while listening to the rest of the sentence and then have to backfill the verb into the hole, WHILE the speaker/writer is continuing onward. Examples (with infinitive in caps for clarity; I'm not yelling):
1 "I like TO WATCH baseball games and keep meticulous score." Keeping the infinitive together forces the subject to stay close to the verb, so clarity is enhanced.
2 "I like TO, while keeping meticulous score, WATCH baseball games." Yuk. Splitting the infinitive inevitably leads to two things which hurt clarity: (a) more subordinate clauses, and (b) forcing the subject of the sentence (the mate of the verb) later in the sentence, which in turn forces the listener to hold a blank place in mind and then later backfill it with "watch baseball games."
Likewise, punctuation inside or outside of quotation marks IS important if it clarifies who is saying/implying/emoting what-- the quoter or the quoted.
Bottom line: if it clarifies, it's a good rule. Amen.
Re: Wellllll... yes and no, Elim
But surely in a practical sense, the rule against split infinitives is (or has become) antiquated. The split infinitives I typically encounter are along the lines of, "To boldly go where..." and such like. Your second example is pretty extreme, and rare for that matter.
But otherwise, I agree with your gist 100%, and would add that for good, clear style, keep the subject and the verb as close together as possible.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Wellllll... yes and no, Elim
As for the purported extremity of my 2nd example, I hope it's extreme in YOUR world, but in my world, it's not extreme at all. I deal with people who put seemingly whole paragraphs of subordinate gibberish in the middle of the infinitive. A semi-exact quote from a recent conversation (again, infinitive in caps): "I want TO precisely, reliably, effectively [at this point, I am about to scream, "WHAT is going to be precise, reliable, and effective??? WHAT????"] MEASURE the responses..." It just would've been a lot clearer, both linguistically and intellectually, to have said, "I want to measure responses precisely, reliably, and effectively." And in writing, it's even worse.
Re: Wellllll... yes and no, Elim
"I like, while keeping meticulous score, to watch baseball games" doesn't split an infinitive but is just as tortured a sentence as your second example.
The rule against split infinitives may, in some cases, lead to clearer sentences, but not often enough to fully justify its existence. Wikipedia has a good example of a sentence that all but requires a split infinitive to flow naturally:
In this case, following the rule does not clarify, rather it muddifies; so by your criterion it's not a good rule.
Re: Wellllll... yes and no, Elim
I would write the sentence:
She decided to get rid of her teddy bear collection gradually.
Why isn't that better? Doesn't that constuction have the advantage of removing the split infinitive and passive voice at the same time? Please enlighten me if I am missing something.
Re: Wellllll... yes and no, Elim
Your sentence reads well, although to my ears no better than the original. However, it does change the sense of the original by assuming that the teddy bears could be considered a 'collection'. You could argue that something 'collected' is inherently a 'collection', but what about the sentence:
You could similarly convert the teddy bears to a collective noun, but I think it significantly changes the meaning:
To me, "teddy bears she had accumulated" sounds perfectly reasonable (she bought a few, friends gave her some as presents, some were left behind by roommates...), whereas a "teddy bear accumulation" sounds odd and comic.
The point being, your "fix" doesn't work in all cases, and is (I argue) not necessary in the first place.
Re: Wellllll... yes and no, Elim
I was attempting to show, apparently poorly, that splitting the infinitive wasn't necessary or beneficial in the first place and that while some sentences can be improved with a split infinitve, they could be even more clear with a different structure. I still don't see why you have to split an infinitive. I think the reason your new sentence sounds funny is that it is almost always written "an accumulation of X" and not the way you had it. But that is just my thinking. In the end, I think you would agree that there are plenty of ways to use a split infinitive poorly, but I still don't see where it is necessary to clarify a sentence. However, this instance cleary isn't the end of the world and still leaves a clear sentence. BUT, it does make for a longer sentence, which can be important in some professions.
And yes, I would argue that anything collected is by definition a collection.
Thanks for the clarification on the passive voice.
Re: Wellllll... yes and no, Elim
I think the general principle of placing modifiers in close proximity argues in favor of "to gradually get rid of" over "to get rid of...gradually".
Let's see if I can emphasize that more by extending the sentence:
Still not convinced? Eh, well. I will continue to occasionally use the split infinitive, and you don't have to necessarily agree with me.
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
Accordingly, I find myself breaking up what could be a single paragraph into 2 or 3 when writing for MCC, or anywhere online. By grammatical rule, this is not necessary, but I feel it makes my writing easier to read and therefore clearer, which is normally my ultimate goal.
Except when my ultimate goal is just to make some stupid one-liner. That happens a lot too.
Re: Notes on Grammar
The difference between whose and who's (the second one is used too often and incorrectly).
I'm sure I'll think of some more ...
Re: Notes on Grammar
Metacomment
Re: Metacomment
by tk on Sep 7, 2006 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Metacomment
Nevertheless, I used to bristle at others' butchery of the language and its usage. Then one day I read the preface to Webster's Collegiate - or something similar. It explained some history and usage of words and the many rules/regulations which affect their usage. It concluded with a statement that (and I'm REALLY ad - libbing here) no matter how you dress up your language and its componentry, the bottom line is that your message gets across.
Ain't it the truth?
by victor frankenstein on Sep 7, 2006 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Metacomment
Your copy is missing at least one word and two to three commas (one instance is debatable). It also has an extraneous comma. Lastly, there is one word that should be replaced with another.
A thousand McCovey bucks to the person who solves this puzzle.
by Bred on Albany Hill on Sep 8, 2006 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Metacomment
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Metacomment
*also, it feels a little weird putting the question mark inside the quotes in that sentence.
Re: Metacomment
by victor frankenstein on Sep 9, 2006 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions
RE: NOTES ON GRAMMAR
Re: RE: NOTES ON GRAMMAR
Re: RE: NOTES ON GRAMMAR
by PacBellBoozer on Sep 7, 2006 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Although, as a season ticketholder,
I am re-signed to the futility of being a Giants fan.
Re: Notes on Grammar
Like "passes mustard."
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Sep 7, 2006 3:05 PM PDT reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Sep 7, 2006 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
OK, this is a new peeve
It's "for all intents and purposes."
Re: OK, this is a new peeve
Re: OK, this is a new peeve
Re: Notes on Grammar
Use "ensure" instead of "insure," except where the sentence involves money.
Re: Notes on Grammar
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: That's It!
(If it's any consolation, I apparently don't know how to inflect verbs anymore -- I had to look up "occur" to see if its gerundial form is "occuring" or "occurring.")
Also, two spaces after the period.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
ONE space after the period
I guess I thought of another pet peeve.
by tk on Sep 7, 2006 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: ONE space after the period
by War on Sep 7, 2006 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: ONE space after the period
I am, however, confident that both the single space and the double space are acceptable and that neither is more correct than the other.
I always opt for the single space because I feel that the double space is silly, takes one too many button pushes, and is generally a useless means of making something look longer (which it won't).
But the argument over which is correct could go on forever, because both are in fact acceptable.
by howtheyscored on Sep 7, 2006 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: ONE space after the period
by howtheyscored on Sep 7, 2006 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: ONE space after the period
Re: ONE space after the period
I, though young, am still old enough to have touched a typewriter (in fact, I have to use one regularly where I work, but it's electric so I have no such spacing problems when I single it).
by howtheyscored on Sep 7, 2006 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: ONE space after the period
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: ONE space after the period
The two-space tradition..
Re: ONE space after the period
by victor frankenstein on Sep 9, 2006 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
Insure was originally related to insurance, which is to receive financial compensation in the event of a setback.
Ensure is derived from Old French, and means to make certain that something happens (or doesn't happen).
At some point people started using insure in place of ensure and the usage became interchangeable. But it still annoys the hell out of me because, to me, to "insure" something is to take out insurance on it...
I'm such a dork.
When can we go back to bashing Benitez already?
by War on Sep 8, 2006 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
Doing a quick www.onelook.com search, it looks like "ensure" first came about around 1385, "insure" (as a variant of "ensure") about 1440, "insurance" in 1553 (with its commercial meaning in 1653 -- "insurance" originally related to something about marriage) and then the commercial meaning of "insure" came about also in 1653.
So yes, insure does predate insurance.
But I'm still annoyed dammit!
by War on Sep 8, 2006 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions
i dun no wat u r all tlking aboot.
About grammar though, on Gameday Threads I don't mind even all lower case letters, although I prefer regular sentances. For Diaries, comments to diaries, and comments to Grants regular posts I'd prefer it to be well thought out and written. For spelling and grammar, I'd suggest getting something like the google toolbar. It'll allow you to spell check your posts. I'm not sure if it checks grammar as well, but if you really need to check basic grammar, try and type up your post in Word and then post it.
It really hasn't been much of a trouble though, especially with pointless diaries, lately.
Re: Notes on Grammar
When using a colon, the first letter after the colon is lower case, unless what comes after the colon could be a sentence all by itself, in which case that first letter is capitalized.
Actually SFfaninNYC, capitalizing the post-colon independent clause is optional, not mandatory.
One pet peeve I have (out of the millions that I've cultivated as a copyeditor) is two spaces after a period. Fellas (and gals), YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS HITTING THE SPACE BAR TWICE ON A COMPUTER AFTER A FULL-STOP. Sorry Mr. Walrus!
Also who/whom confusion. Fellas (and gals), "who" is the subject ("Who took the cookie from the cookie jar?"), "whom" is the object ("You gave the cookie to whom?").
Lastly, on a clarity tip, try not to begin sentences with "there" or "it" (e.g. "There are a lot of grammar things that people aren't aware of" [should be: "People aren't aware of a lot of grammar things"]; "It's awfully annoying to read text with bad grammar").
Re: Notes on Grammar
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Sep 7, 2006 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
Computers, OTOH, typically use proportional fonts, which, uh, I suppose corrects the problem of the period.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Still, two spaces just looks "right" to me, maybe because that's what I'm used to.
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Sep 7, 2006 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
and no, it's not that Robin Williams
Re: Notes on Grammar
I saw the other, slightly-more-famous Robin Williams when "Miss Doubtfire" was being filmed in my neighborhood. I didn't get to talk to him, though.
Re: Notes on Grammar
Hope you're not offended, Looney, although as a copyeditor I imagine you got over your fear of annoying people years ago.
Re: Notes on Grammar
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
by tk on Sep 7, 2006 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
by tk on Sep 7, 2006 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
You really shouldn't be jealous of me; the SOMA gig pays way too little to be fulltime.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Though I recently "graduated," I guess, to better hours and a little less comma chasing.
I've also always been taught...
Sorry Mr. copy editor
Re: Sorry Mr. copy editor
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Sorry Mr. copy editor
I, too, learned to type on an IBM selectric (circa 1971) - and I'm used to the double space after the period. But the argument about proportional fonts is persuasive. There. Shorter spaces. Hmm.
by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Sep 7, 2006 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
That's a SERIAL comma, effete ninny
Re: That's a SERIAL comma, effete ninny
by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Sep 8, 2006 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Sorry Mr. copy editor
Re: Notes on Grammar
NERDS!
by nostocksjustbonds on Sep 7, 2006 4:00 PM PDT reply actions
Everything I needed to know about grammar,
Lisa: Meet Linguo, the grammar robot. I built him all by myself. If you misuse language, he'll correct you.
Homer: Well, let's put him to the test. [slowly] Me love beer.
Linguo: I love beer.
Homer: Aw, he loves beer. Here, little fellow. [pours a handy can of beer in Linguo's mouth]
Lisa: Dad, no!
Linguo: [shorting out] Error.
Homer: I'm sorry. I thought he was a party
robot.
Lisa: Almost done -- just lay still.
Linguo: Lie still.
Lisa: I knew that. Just testing.
Linguo: Sentence fragment.
Lisa: "Sentence fragment" is also a sentence fragment.
Linguo: [shifts eyes around] Must conserve battery power. [shuts himself down]
Homer: [gasps] Linguo -- dead?
Linguo: Linguo is dead. [fades out]
Re: Everything I needed to know about grammar,
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Everything I needed to know about grammar,
Re: Everything I needed to know about grammar,
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Everything I needed to know about grammar,
"Come to Homer's BBBQ. The extra B is for BYOBB." Bart: What's that extra B for?
Homer: It's a typo.
Re: Notes on Grammar
I wasn't going to post in this diary, but then I saw a commercial that did that, and it pissed me off. It was "The Manning's are ready for football season." I wanted to hurt someone at ESPN (I mean, you know, besides Joe Morgan and John Kruk and Stuart Scott and all the people I already didn't like at ESPN).
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
by nostocksjustbonds on Sep 7, 2006 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
by nostocksjustbonds on Sep 7, 2006 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
I am an "Elements of Style" guy, so I can't stand to see "Barry Bonds' bat" or other such mishandlings of the singular possessive. "Barry Bonds's bat" is correct. "The quality of Bill Simmons's columns has steadily declined since February 2002". Use s' only with plural possessive: "The roses' red hue contrasts with the whitewashed walls."
Also, I am appalled by the rapid disappearance of the adverb, especially in colloquial speech. The other day, I asked one of my students how she was doing with her essay, and she said, "I'm doing fabulous." I tried to subtly correct her by repeating with (more) proper usage, replying, "Good. I'm glad it's going fabulously." Help me fight this battle. Please! I beg you! Also, y'all might want to check out this column from Slate...
THE INFANT GRAMMARIAN
http://www.slate.com/id/2148342/
Addendum...
And David, I am with you on the adverb fight. Let us fight vigorously, courageously, and tirelessly. (Please, please note my use of the serial comma.)
Re: Addendum...
For which I commend him.
Re: For which I commend him.
by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Sep 8, 2006 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
I am not so Nazi about grammar because, frankly, I'm kind of lame at it and have to work at it, a lot, and I still make the same mistakes (going with the Simpson theme, it's like Bart always touching the electrodes that shocks him with electricity, over and over and over again). Passive writing is my major offense but luckily Word marks all the changes I need to do nowadays so I'm usually good before I submit my reports.
My pet peeve has to do with players' names and I admit I have made mistakes, though mainly when the player is new. It's "Lowry" not "Lowery" is the main offender for me.
I didn't know that one space is the standard for computer typing, I've been two spacing on computers since the early 80's and noticed early in the Ought's that Microsoft Word constantly changes my two spaces to one space and I would go back and change them all back. :^D Maybe I'll give up that idiosyncracy on my part but when it's been drilled into you (including getting marked down points on your paper) to put in two spaces, it borders on Pavlovian for me to put two in there, so hopefully you will forgive me.
It's kind of like the QWERTY keyboard, yes, it's a computer, there are much more efficient devicies for entering in letters and numbers that are on the market, some are even one handed jobs, and yet we still use the keyboard layout that was designed to slow down typers so that you don't get your keys stuck (and how many of you actually know what I mean by that? :^).
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Sep 7, 2006 5:04 PM PDT reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
I put "Pedro Felix" into the search engine to see if anyone has used it recently, and here's what I found.
Haven't heard much from that Martin character since then... he must have been so embarrassed that he changed his name. :)
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
QWERTY
I've had other people tell me that the QWERTY keyboard was created after the original keyboard proved to be to easy to use! (QWERTY is clearly not laid out logically, based on the frequency table of the letters of the English alphabet). Secretaries and typists proved to be so fast on it, that there were concerns that this new technology would eliminate too many jobs.
Does anyone know if that's true? Or has anyone else heard that story?
by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Sep 8, 2006 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions
The story of QWERTY...
Re: The story of QWERTY...
I tried the Dvorak keyboard once. Didn't take, unfortunately.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: QWERTY
And, lastly, QWERTY is supposedly laid out logically based on the frequency table of the letters of the English language: they put all the high frequency letters as far apart from each other as they could to, as the other commenter noted, in order to reduce the number of keys jamming together and getting stuck (which would slow down the typing much more than QWERTY does). They also attempted to place keys so that the typist would normally switch hands for the next key, in an attempt to again reduce key jams, but obviously that's not always possible.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Sep 11, 2006 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions
My Big Grammar Rules
- Splitting infinitives often dilutes the speaker's intent; all sentences are clearer and more powerful if recast to keep the verb and subject closer together.
- Passive is almost never clearer than active voice.
- If you find that you are ending a sentence with a preposition, there is almost certainly a clearer, stronger way to cast that sentence.
- SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT, PEOPLE!! "AnyONE who wants to go to the game should buy THEIR ticket in advance." AGGGGGGHHHHHH! Either say, "People who want to go to the game should buy their ticket in advance," OR "Anyone who wants to go to the game should buy his or her ticket in advance." Just because English doesn't have a single non-gender word for the singular pronoun doesn't mean that lazy bastards can just use the plural pronoun in its place. (And for any Brits who have read this far, it's "The Army HAS made a decision," not "The Army HAVE made a decision." Jesus Christ, it's CALLED English-- why the hell can't you prancing nancies speak it?)
- As Hemingway illustrated with his work and Mark Twain used to prattle on about, NOUNS AND VERBS are pretty much all you need to write well and clearly. Twain used to say to hunt down and kill all adjectives. I don't go quite that far, but as I have gotten older, I have come to be suspicious of almost all modifiers. I ramble on too long on a lot of my postings here, but have come to really pare my professional writing down, and find it's much better than when I used to make it flowery and jammed with modifiers.
Speaking as a lazy bastard...
You're wrong
If this were a glaring deficiency in the language, "thou" would have survived. Instead, we must conclude that, for the vast majority of English speakers, it is superfluous to have distinct pronouns for the 2nd person singular and plural.
Right on, Salemicus
Re: You're wrong
Your conclusion isn't supported by evidence. The reasons for "thou" falling out of favor aren't entirely clear, though it seems to have to do with the plural "you" coming to be adopted as a more polite, formal form of address, like the German "sie" (literally, they) or Italian "lei" (literally, she) used to address individuals one does not know well.
The fact that so many native English speakers have invented new pronouns to distinguish the singular and plural, which are in current usage - including constructions like "you guys", which are often used in place of a pronoun - and that they persist in using them in the face of English teachers telling them they shouldn't, is more compelling evidence for the need for distinct pronouns than the historical loss of our former pronoun.
Or, more allegorically: I decide I don't need my car anymore, so I sell it. A month later, I really need to drive somewhere, so I go ask my buddy Salemicus if I can borrow his. Would you tell me "You obviously don't need a car, or else you wouldn't have gotten rid of the one you had"? (Note placement of punctuation vis-a-vis quotes.)
Re: You're wrong
At a wedding two years ago in Texas the groom's mother asked me, "Is y'all gonna take y'all some of that cake home for y'all."
by Voodoo Chile on Sep 7, 2006 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: You're wrong
If the same tool gets invented by different people in different places, it's clear that tool fulfills some common need.
Re: You're wrong
by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Sep 8, 2006 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: You're wrong
Re: Speaking as a lazy bastard...
Re: My Big Grammar Rules
Should read, "People who want to go to the game should buy their tickets in advance."
by howtheyscored on Sep 7, 2006 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Re: My Big Grammar Rules
From what I learned in composition class at the Univ. of Chicago, writers shouldn't feel obliged to blindly adhere to active voice because of two main reasons.
First, readers like to have a reasonably finite number of different subjects that run throughout a text to maintain clarity and intelligibility. Obviously, with a finite number of different subjects, the author tends to start his sentences with the piece's important concepts, which are called "characters." And when an author establishes his characters as the grammatical subjects of sentences, the reader can more easily identify the most important concepts of a piece.
(So in the previous paragraph, most of my grammatical subjects are "readers" and "authors," which you (the reader) can identify as important themes.)
As a corollary, an author should not proliferate characters, as that would saddle readers with too much information, not all of which is essential.
Second, readers (especially of English) prefer to start with information with which they're already familiar before they encounter new information. So if an author has established a few solid subjects, and then the subjects are acted upon by new, subordinate things, the subjects should remain subjects, and the subordinate things become grammatical objects -- i.e. passive verb construction.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: My Big Grammar Rules
But, ho crap, I had no idea how little I knew. I'm taking an editing class for the first time, and have been blown away with my lack of knowledge. This thread has been very interesting. I do some of the things mentioned in this thread, and I'm in the safety zone with others.
Now I have to admit I don't know the difference between passive and active voice. I only know that I should know. Have I been an offender?
by Grant Brisbee on Sep 7, 2006 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions
No, you haven't been.
Passive: Jeff Kent was shot to death in a hunting "accident" by Will Clark.
Or from the Reagan/Iran-Contra Era:
"Mistakes were made." (Passive.)
"Some otherwise well-meaning people in my administration made mistakes.) (Active. And weasely.)
One of the problems with passive voice is that it obscures the subject-- WHO is doing the killing, mistaking, blaming, etc. Sometimes it is politique to do that; more often it's just maddening to discerning listeners/readers.
Re: No, you haven't been.
A good way of spotting passive voice is if you see a past participle (e.g. in the Kent example, "was") in front of the verb ("shot"), and (sometimes) with a prepositional phrase at the end ("by the Nuschler").
Where I disagree with Mayor is in what the writer wants to emphasize; if I'm specifically dissertating on moustached jerk-faced wannabe Texans, I'd probably write the second example ("Kent was shot..."). But if I'm writing about left-handed thrilling Louisianians, I'd write the first way ("Clark shot Kent"). (Hey, Clark Kent!)
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: No, you haven't been.
Re: No, you haven't been.
John Wilkes Booth shot Abe Lincoln.
with
Abe Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth.
...but after writing it, I decided I was repeating what LF said. So I guess you were agreeing with my point after all, though how you knew it is beyond me!
Re: No, you haven't been.
But when you are an effete elitist Ivory-Tower snob who writes about seriality as the main issue in a 30-page thesis while looking at the reception of seriality in terms of repetition, temporality and narratology, and you use the word "diegesis" about 17 times, you want to hold your reader's hand as much as possible.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: No, you haven't been.
It's in their best interest.
by victor frankenstein on Sep 7, 2006 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions
McCovey Outlaw gallops amid the Deputies
Re: My Big Grammar Rules
I am great at rewriting sentences with an active voice, deciding that they now miss the point, and disregarding Word's suggestions.
Re: My Big Grammar Rules
Re: My Big Grammar Rules
Since you asked, though:
Some context: I'm talking about a car chase (character) and how a viewer (big Character) reacts to it -- Will and Francie, although being characters in the dramatic sense, are mere objects in my argument who have only just appeared (on page 15) in the thesis, while "viewer" appears on page 2 (nb. page 1 is my cover page). But looking back at this sentence, though, I probably should've written:
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions
The problem with your example...
My #1 pet peeve
your = possessive form of "you"
you're = contraction of the words "you are"
Re: Notes on Grammar
Over there, behind the preposition, between the "A" and the "T".
Re: Notes on Grammar
Toward, not towards.
Backward, not backwards.
Forward, not forwards.
And so on, infinitely, in that manner, because the s serves no purpose, no purpose at all in the directional lexicon. It should not be there. It is accepted convention, but it looks stupid to my eyes and makes no sense. There is only ever ONE forward, backward, frontward, toward. So singular, always. Thank you.
Baseballs fans are very smart
by Rusty the Mechanical Man on Sep 7, 2006 8:48 PM PDT reply actions
Re: Baseballs fans are very smart
On a related note, elipses work this way, and I'm not sure but Microsoft Word might even get it wrong (but that program has any number of dictionary and formatting flaws). So this from the official guide on form.
Three dots when the elipses is in the middle of a sentence... but four dots when it is at the end because you need a full stop on top of the punctuation itself....
Elipses are probably the most misused (and certainly in my case, overused) punctuation in the English language.
Except maybe commas. And semicolons. And apostrophes.
by howtheyscored on Sep 7, 2006 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Baseballs fans are very smart
by howtheyscored on Sep 7, 2006 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I was just going to ask about elipses..
Re: I was just going to ask about elipses..
One more, and you NEED to read this one!
"The car needs to be washed." NO! Inanimate objects have no needs! PLUS it's passive voice, which, as usual, obscures the subject.
"You need to listen to this." NO! If had a NEED to listen to it, I wouldn't have to be told. You mean that I OUGHT to listen to it, or SHOULD, or would be a fool NOT to, but in NO WAY do I have a need to do X.
"The voters need to be more attentive to eroding civil liberties." NO! Quite obviously, they DON'T have that need. They certainly SHOULD; they are fools NOT TO; they would be WELL ADVISED to wake up before we are even more of a Big Brother state (mmmm... Janelle...). But NEED? No.
"You need to calm down about this idiotic usage of 'need'." Well, maybe that one's right...
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 7, 2006 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
If you accept that sentence, then "You need to listen to this!" is not really misuse, it's just hyperbole...like "Bonds hit that one a mile!" which I assume nobody here would object to. (Note sentence ended with preposition. Considered rewriting. Liked it better this way.)
Political Networking
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
And if urgency is the issue, the language has a better tool for that: imperative commands, possibly with exclamation/interjection: "HEY! DUMBASS! Get off the tracks!"
Incidentally, nice deployment of the logical fallacy of faulty analogy, tending even toward equivocation: calling X 'hyperbole' then using an unobjectionable use of hyperbole to say that X must be OK. Tricky boy!
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 7, 2006 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
You NEED to look down
by victor frankenstein on Sep 9, 2006 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
You can be the office Staff
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
If your objection is to the exaggeration of wants into needs ("I need to see the Giants beat the Padres this weekend!"), then I don't see what makes this worse than any other form of hyperbole.
I'll accept your accusation of logical fallacy, though I will plead lazy-bastardhood rather than trickiness.
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
The other examples are NOT wrong: even if I am attempting those other things by being on the train tracks, it is empiracally true that I would be well advised to get off the tracks. So "You ought to get off the tracks" or "Get off the tracks, clod" would be perfectly correct and appropriate.
I guess, Elim, if you still aren't getting that "need" and "oughta" aren't synonyms, then please look up "need" (both verb and noun, because the verb definition sends you to the noun) and see the real definition.
More examples: I hear it a lot about babies when they are crying: "He needs to stop crying." Um, nope. If the baby had that need, he would stop crying. Clearly, the baby has some other need than to stop crying. He SHOULD stop crying; it sure would be NICE if he would stop crying; it sure is trying the parent's patience that he hasn't stopped crying. But NEED? Nope. Wrong concept altogether.
And inanimate objects have no needs. "My bats need to be hollowed out and corked" is wrong AND it misplaces the responsibility in the sentence. The truth is that I need my bats hollowed & corked.
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
And the Cambridge Dictionary of American English (nervy Brits, telling us how to speak our own language) offers as an example of need in the sense of "must do":
I think you may be tilting at this particular windmill by yourself, yerronner.
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
As for "regional notes"... doesn't that indicate that it isn't preferred usage?
But consider this, Elim: Your theoretical girlfriend walks in and says, "EliminateMe [which is never a good sign when she uses your whole name], you need to pay more attention to me between April and October." Besides being factually incorrect, her construction (of the sentence, not how SHE is constructed) totally shifts the responsibility from the speaker to the (semi-)listener; she is making it YOUR responsibility to do X, rather than owning the more truthful statement of "EliminateMe, I need you to pay more attention to me from April to October." Often, people misuse "need" to shift responsibility from the proper party to another party. (P.S. You should dump her for someone more mature.)
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
But the kind of jackass music snob who says things like "you need to listen to this" probably means it literally. He actually believes you will be unable to function as a human being if you don't listen to the new Radiohead track, and that you're just not aware of this particular need yet.
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
The point being here that if it was inappropriate to say that an inanimate objects "needs" something done to it, they wouldn't use such a sentence as an example to illustrate regional variants in accepted usage.
And I just hope my wife doesn't find out about my theoretical girlfriend. She thinks I've been spending all my time posting nonsense on MCC.
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
To the mayor, my last word on the subject: You need to let me buy you a beer sometime.
Re: One more, and you NEED to read this one!
More importantly, is this the furthest to the right anyone's ever taken the indented replies?
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 8, 2006 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope
Re: Nope
Re: Nope
Re: Notes on Grammar
Pet peeve: People who write "in the midst of" when they should just say "amid."
And I don't want to hear about how I put the period inside the quotation mark. That's a matter of style, not a hard and fast rule. So piss off.
Re: Notes on Grammar
Actually... ;) But that's enough of me being a turd-burgling know-it-all monkey for one day.
AMEN X 100 about the "in the midst of"/"amid" thing, and let me add "amidst" and "whilst" -- unless you're a charming Brit, you will sound like a fake-sounding pretentious ponce.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 7, 2006 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
I just had always thought that other styles -- perhaps MLA or technical manuals -- might have a different rule on how to handle quotes. That's all I meant.
Re: Notes on Grammar
this thread is so blowing my mind right now
LOVED you in 'Adaptation.', man!
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 7, 2006 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: LOVED you in 'Adaptation.', man!
<awaits ear flick>
I can't stand
"I'm anxious to break Hank Aaron's record." Anxious means you are nervous or apprehensive. I am EAGER to break Hank Aaron's record. It's like nails on a chalk board.
I'm witcha, Brother!
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 7, 2006 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
All You Laureates...
by victor frankenstein on Sep 7, 2006 10:13 PM PDT reply actions
And a BASEBALL-related one:
"Past tense of the idiom 'fly out'-- your thoughts."
Re: And a BASEBALL-related one:
Dizzy Dean CLASSIC! Good knowledge
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 7, 2006 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: And a BASEBALL-related one:
Diamond Mind Baseball, the best baseball sim around, uses "flew out" and it drives me up a freakin' wall whenever I see it.
Re: And a BASEBALL-related one:
Actually both of them sound far more natural than I would like. "Finley doubled"...that just doesn't seem right. "Finley homered"...there's definitely something wrong there, I just can't quite put my finger on it. But I digress.
In any case, the sentence:
just doesn't work at all...unless Finley has chartered a small aircraft to shuttle him between the dugout and his position in the outfield.
So I have to go with "flied out" as the past tense of "to fly out", though only in baseball terms:
"I have to fly out of SFO tomorrow."
"I flew out of there last week. The security line was literally a mile long."
Good news everybody!
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): flied; fly·ing
: to hit a fly in baseball
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Bzzzzt!
Per M-W, then, both of these are correct:
Steve Finley flew out to Atlanta last Monday.
Steve Finley flied out to right field last Tuesday.
...even though both are intransitive.
Steve Finley flew the team plane out to Atlanta last Monday.
...would be a correct transitive use of the verb. I'm sure it is factually inaccurate, although if he had flown the plane it would arguably have been a greater contribution to the team than anything he actually did last week.
Re: Bzzzzt!
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Good explanation, Elim. And more on idioms.
For that matter, and I can't recall whether it was you and I am too lazy to review, someone brought up the old bugaboo about sentences not ending with prepositions. As a general matter, if a sentence ends with a preposition, that's a clue that there's a clearer, stronger way to write the sentence, BUT I am not dogmatic about it. The exception to the inadvisability of prepositions ending a sentence is if it's part of an idiom. So, "I told him to get out" or "My sole purpose of going out with her was to get over" or "I asked the Mayor about my internship and he said I was definitely in" are all perfectly fine with me.
Thread of the Year Nominee (TM)
If the Giants played as well as people on this site wrote about the rules of grammar, then I suspect every October we'd be attending championship parades down Market Street .
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
That's what's been great about this
But I guess it works the other way, too: anti-snobs are every bit as snobbish as the original snobs. There is no valid reason to look down on people for whom grammar really matters, so long as their motives are positive-- which everyone's seems to be in this discussion.
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 7, 2006 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions
that and which
A flick on the ear, then
But I could never smack a McCC brother or sister, so I am imposing the sentence of flick on the ear. Please flick yourself on the ear. Thank you.
I'll bite
Re: I'll bite
The that/which distinction comes into play when the noun being modified is not a person but a thing. "That" is used with restrictive clauses, "which" with non-. Say there was another ball hit into the same section a moment later, and the kids that caught them were comparing the two: "The ball that my son caught had a suspicious scuff mark on it." Liberal grammar appeasers like the Mayor of 311 would have you believe that that "that" could be changed to the effete Latinate "which" with no harm being done, but manly hardliners like me insist that "which" must be reserved for nonrestrictive clauses: "The suspicious scuff mark, which was about an inch long, looked like it had been deliberately made."
The Mayor might further object that this is silly and redundant and the meaning is virtually always clear from context, at which point I would scowl and try to devise a sentence like "Abandon all the boats that are sinking!" Get that mixed up with "Abandon all the boats, which are sinking!" and people could drown. Maybe the Mayor wants that on his conscience, but I sure don't.
Re: I'll bite
As for myself, I follow a more pragmatic "How does it sound?" principle, as opposed to my copyeditorial predecessor who said that he takes out every instance of "which" and replaces it with "that," among other appalling gestures.
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'll bite
Re: I'll bite
Seriously, I can't imagine I would use "which" without a comma in a case like that... just sounds wrong. I'll have to pay close attention and try to figure out why Word is flagging me on this issue all the time.
Re: I'll bite
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait-- witches can sink????
I'm cracking up, Evan. I have been called many things, but never a liberal language appeaser. As I have said throughout, if it aids clarity, I'm for it-- and there is no question that sometimes it aids clarity (such as with your first examples about which son caught the foul ball).
This is no academic exercise for me, though: View Box 311 gets a foul ball approximately every ten games, and because there are only 3 rows in the section, the odds of one of those bastards endangering my sandwich or alkyhol are serious.
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
Counting on Feliz for anything.
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 7, 2006 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
Re: Notes on Grammar
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Notes on Grammar
The secret lives of variables
Re: Notes on Grammar
Freudian slip?
Re: Freudian slip?
Re: Freudian slip?
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Good Lord...
As a baseball fan, I'm appalled; as a former English major, I have a crush on each and every one of you.
One more...
Krukow says that all the time. "The ball just didn't have enough heighth on it." <groooan>
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Sep 8, 2006 9:04 AM PDT reply actions
Re: One more...
[polite golf clap] Well done.
Wow
This is seriously a grammar nitpicker's wet dream. Love it.
hanged
But when you sit on your couch and admire the Chronicle headline that, in 88 point font, declares the San Francisco Giants have finally won the world series, you do so only after you've HUNG the frame.
and i'm sure the rule gets a lot more complicated than that... but that's what i remember.
Re: hanged
by lunaticfridge on Sep 8, 2006 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
The Fridge is correct
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 8, 2006 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The Fridge is correct
Hanged refers to the executing of prisoners.
Hung refers to those of us who are fabulously endowed by nature.
Mmmmm.... correcting interns....
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 8, 2006 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The Fridge is correct
Could be. The truth is ...
260 Comments on grammar
Pay no attention to that headline
The rest were devoted to the kind of grandstanding, pontificating, and flatulence you have come to love at McChronicles.
Re: 260 Comments on grammar
by howtheyscored on Sep 9, 2006 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
The obligatory question
by Mayor of 311 on Sep 9, 2006 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: 260 Comments on grammar
Re: 260 Comments on grammar
I don't think you did. Go back and take that into account.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
