Grammar Thread

[StormKnight (1)]

Yes. Or rather, it would be "We are waiting for the supplier, ABC's, analysis" ... which leads to the same question. If you use a comma there, though, you need 2 of them. Better would be "We are waiting for the supplier ABC's analysis," but this still seems strange. Much the same as in the sentence "I went with Jane, my half-brother's cousin, to the movies." You can't say "I went with Jane, my half-brother's cousin to the movies." You have to have 2 or 0 commas in this kind of case.

But changing it from parentheses to commas is just rewording the sentence. There are a million ways to reword the sentence to eliminate the need for the possessive (such as "We are waiting for the analysis from our supplier, ABC.") but I'm looking for what the right way to do it would be in the case where the sentence is not reworded.

Or you could try it this way:

"We are waiting for the analysis of ABC, the supplier." It seems less ambiguous in grammar, and much more direct in who the supplier is.

Edited June 10, 2009 by StormKnight

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Biggest pet peve with grammar.... the word Irregardless DOES NOT EXIST!!!!! its Regardless or with Irregard.... not both!!!!!!!! end of rant

It exists, not that it is correct. Just like many words that are now "correct" were once errors or just slop. They became so common that their use was incorporated into the textbooks. English itself is a long evolution (or devolving) of previous languages now dubbed "Correct English" by the lexicographers.

That particular "word" seems in such wide use I'm thinking it may get the same eventual treatment.

Subject Change:

I found this on the net:

"The man gave ice cream to Jane and I."

This is WRONG, and it hurts my brain. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard. I'm serious. It drives me insane. Would you say this?

Really? Now that really does seem like some over the top hair splitting.

[TheOsakaKoneko]

Or you could try it this way:

"We are waiting for the analysis of ABC, the supplier." It seems less ambiguous in grammar, and much more direct in who the supplier is.

...is just rewording the sentence. There are a million ways to reword the sentence to eliminate the need for the possessive (such as "We are waiting for the analysis from our supplier, ABC.") but I'm looking for what the right way to do it would be in the case where the sentence is not reworded.

Grrrrrrr.........

I KNOWS! But I wants to know how to do it without rewording!!! :P My example was a really simple one, and there are some times when I want to use it when rewording is slightly more difficult. Always possible, of course, but sometimes it may take me a few seconds to think of it, a few seconds I may not have if I am swamped with translations that day! So in the case in which I do NOT want to reword it...is there a correct way? With the parentheses???

Really? Now that really does seem like some over the top hair splitting.

Yes, it is wrong. Seriously. Just wrong. Basically the rule of thumb is to take out the 3rd person's name - in that case, do you use "me" or "I"? In this case, "me", so it should be "Jane and me". Period.

Edited June 11, 2009 by TheOsakaKoneko

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Grrrrrrr.........

I KNOWS! But I wants to know how to do it without rewording!!! :P My example was a really simple one, and there are some times when I want to use it when rewording is slightly more difficult. Always possible, of course, but sometimes it may take me a few seconds to think of it, a few seconds I may not have if I am swamped with translations that day! So in the case in which I do NOT want to reword it...is there a correct way? With the parentheses???

Really? Now that really does seem like some over the top hair splitting.

Yes, it is wrong. Seriously. Just wrong. Basically the rule of thumb is to take out the 3rd person's name - in that case, do you use "me" or "I"? In this case, "me", so it should be "Jane and me". Period.

Oh I get how its wrong, it to me just seems so minor that i wouldn't even bat an eyelash. I do support the grammar Nazi's efforts, despite me not being one. Sometimes it takes more extremists to push the total slackers up a bit toward the middle. Some will improve on their own, but a larger group need to know the overlords are watching to do so.

Hell I've sent PM's to people and politely slipped in a few suggestions about their use of language. Contrary to what is the norm, the 3 people I've suggested this to, stayed on the board and actually seem to have improved quite a bit. I know my grammar and spelling suck, but I do try. It is more of a memory and focus problem with me. Probably 80% of the time i realize at least after the fact that something could be corrected. But, it's a question of how bad i feel about it and if it is enough to spend the time to go back and edit it. I'm also fairly convinced I have mild undiagnosed dyslexia, which does not exactly help.

I've got so many hours "wasted" on the internet, that a little inaccuracy saves me a fuckton (actual metric measurement) of time. I often end up spending 3 hours trying to sort out some drama, turning that into 4 hours due to proofreading isn't something I'm quite up for, as much as I might like to be.

[pomba gira]

Can you take out the parentheses all together and just say that you're waiting for your supplier, ABC's analysis?

That's what I would go with, if I absolutely had to retain the same word order. Personally I think StormKnight's solution is much more elegant. There are usages that are technically correct, but still sound awkward or ambiguous in practice.

& Troy, I guess I'm an over-the-top hairsplitter, 'cos that one bugs me too. Although not as much as "irregardless", or using "then" for "than", "except" for "accept", and "less" for "fewer". And nowhere near as much as misused apostrophes, which drive me absolutely batshit.

[hunhee]

Oh I get how its wrong, it to me just seems so minor that i wouldn't even bat an eyelash. I do support the grammar Nazi's efforts, despite me not being one. Sometimes it takes more extremists to push the total slackers up a bit toward the middle. Some will improve on their own, but a larger group need to know the overlords are watching to do so.

Hell I've sent PM's to people and politely slipped in a few suggestions about their use of language. Contrary to what is the norm, the 3 people I've suggested this to, stayed on the board and actually seem to have improved quite a bit. I know my grammar and spelling suck, but I do try. It is more of a memory and focus problem with me. Probably 80% of the time i realize at least after the fact that something could be corrected. But, it's a question of how bad i feel about it and if it is enough to spend the time to go back and edit it. I'm also fairly convinced I have mild undiagnosed dyslexia, which does not exactly help.

I've got so many hours "wasted" on the internet, that a little inaccuracy saves me a fuckton (actual metric measurement) of time. I often end up spending 3 hours trying to sort out some drama, turning that into 4 hours due to proofreading isn't something I'm quite up for, as much as I might like to be.

You didn't capitalize a lot of your I's *runs and hides behind the *

[pomba gira]

It exists, not that it is correct. Just like many words that are now "correct" were once errors or just slop. They became so common that their use was incorporated into the textbooks. English itself is a long evolution (or devolving) of previous languages now dubbed "Correct English" by the lexicographers.

That particular "word" seems in such wide use I'm thinking it may get the same eventual treatment.

Gawd, I hope not, 'cos that one just irritates the hell out of me. I actually think it's pretty groovy to live in a time when language is evolving faster than ever before... but "irregardless" is just irredeemably WRONG.

I say we just revamp the whole English language so it actually makes sense, and go back to the pre-19th c. system of orthography. I'd wager a lot of "learning disabilities" would vanish.

[TheOsakaKoneko]

I actually almost never hear 'irregardless'... When I do hear it it just sounds like a parody of bad English, because it sounds so crazy that I think, "How could anyone possibly really think of that as a word???"

[Rev.Reverence]

I actually almost never hear 'irregardless'... When I do hear it it just sounds like a parody of bad English, because it sounds so crazy that I think, "How could anyone possibly really think of that as a word???"

SEE...I only use those words to be silly..in a way to serious moment..but that's within bardic rights in the artistic mutilation of the language...& I use a funny voice...so it's ok..right?

[Rev.Reverence]

Gawd, I hope not, 'cos that one just irritates the hell out of me. I actually think it's pretty groovy to live in a time when language is evolving faster than ever before... but "irregardless" is just irredeemably WRONG.

I say we just revamp the whole English language so it actually makes sense, and go back to the pre-19th c. system of orthography. I'd wager a lot of "learning disabilities" would vanish.

??? What's that???

[pomba gira]

??? What's that???

Wikipedia Hx of the English spelling system

This explains it way better than I can... but if you read unmodernized material from before the printing press or in its early days, you'll see that there was little if any emphasis on "correct" spelling... it was all phonetic and in some ways served as an expression of personal creativity. The modern system of a rigid orthography really came into its own in the industrial era, with the push toward educating the masses using a standardized system. Spelling bees are a product of that period. My own thought is that now we're moving away from that "clerks & factory workers" brand of education, which emphasizes learning rules and memorization, a more intuitive orthography will eventually involve.

[Scales]

I was taught to use "this."

As opposed to "this".

Not sure if the second one is allowed, but I'd never use it.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

You didn't capitalize a lot of your I's *runs and hides behind the *

Hey bratt! Better run!!!! *grabs* *spank* !!

...*feels guilty* *pet pet*

I have no problem with people correcting my English or pointing out errors. Just as long as the asumption is not that good grammar is a good way to cover up limited intelligence... oops!

Seriously, I have no problem with people pointing out grammar or punctuation. It is helpful for me. I'd avoid pointing it out in the middle of a deep topic discussion, just as they are rare and derailing them is poor form. Such as in some topic about say, the meaning of life or something.

I actually almost never hear 'irregardless'... When I do hear it it just sounds like a parody of bad English, because it sounds so crazy that I think, "How could anyone possibly really think of that as a word???"

I hear it pretty regularly when my uber conservative dad is listening to one of his talk shows. *bonks head on table*

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I was taught to use "this."

As opposed to "this".

Not sure if the second one is allowed, but I'd never use it.

The overlords say the first is correct. Commas and periods pretty much always go inside. Question marks can go outside depending on the "logic" of the sentence.

My friend asked me, "Do you like douche bags?"

Do you agree that my friend said, "I like all douche bags" ?

This kind of stuff I'll probably never get properly punctuated on a regular basis. I had to really focus hard there. Do as I say not as I do. I am doing good to get the spelling and occasionally grammar correct. Punctuation? *brain failure* LOL

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Texan: “Where are you from?”

Harvard grad: “I come from a place where we do not end our sentences with prepositions.”

Texan: “Okay – where are you from, jackass?”

[TygerLili]

"Irregardless" is a one-word double negative. If you say "irregardless," "with regard" is the actual meaning of what you're saying. I can't believe that no one here has mentioned double negatives, by the way. Talk about nails on a chalkboard... If you want to sound completely unintelligent, just throw in a bunch of double negatives.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Gawd, I hope not, 'cos that one just irritates the hell out of me. I actually think it's pretty groovy to live in a time when language is evolving faster than ever before... but "irregardless" is just irredeemably WRONG.

I say we just revamp the whole English language so it actually makes sense, and go back to the pre-19th c. system of orthography. I'd wager a lot of "learning disabilities" would vanish.

Unfortunately it seems we are doomed to use languages that have evloved rather than having been designed. Things that have evolved are full of artifacts and poor "design". This problem is going to be legion in these "created"-by-collective-cultural-bargaining word symbol systems.

"Irregardless" is a one-word double negative. If you say "irregardless," "with regard" is the actual meaning of what you're saying. I can't believe that no one here has mentioned double negatives, by the way. Talk about nails on a chalkboard... If you want to sound completely unintelligent, just throw in a bunch of double negatives.

Interesting Wiki Entry for the word. A good example of an evolving but not necessarily proper word:

Origin - Irregardless

The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the speculation among references is that it may be a blend of irrespective and regardless, both of which are commonly accepted standard English words. By blending these words, an illogical word is created. Another possibility is that when people say "irregardless" they are following the pattern of words like irrational and irregular. "Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."[1] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana. Barely a decade later, the usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?"[2]

Appearance in reference books

One way to follow the progress of and sentiments toward irregardless is by studying how it is described in references throughout the twentieth century. Webster’s New International Dictionary (2nd. Ed. Unabridged) described the word as an erroneous or humorous form of regardless, and attributed it to the United States. Although irregardless was beginning to make its way into the American lexicon, it still was not universally recognized and was missing completely from Fowler's Modern English Usage,[3] published in 1965, nor is irregardless mentioned under the entry for regardless therein. In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry in dictionaries and usage reference books. It appears in a wide range of dictionaries including: Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1961, repr. 2002),[4] The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, 1991),[5] Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001), and Webster’s New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2004).[6] It should also be noted that the definition in most dictionaries is simply listed as regardless (along with the note nonstandard, or similar). Merriam–Webster even states "Use regardless instead."

Australian linguist Pam Peters (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004) suggests that irregardless has become fetishized, since natural examples of this word in corpora of written and spoken English are greatly outnumbered by examples where it is in fact only cited as an incorrect term.

Prescriptive vs. descriptive

The approach taken by lexicographers when documenting a word's uses and limitations can be prescriptive or descriptive. The method used with irregardless is overwhelmingly prescriptive. Much of the criticism comes from the illogical double negative pairing of the prefix (ir-) and suffix (-less), and the argument that irregardless is not, or should not be, a word at all because it lacks the antecedents of a "bona fide nonstandard word." A counterexample is provided in ain't, which has an "ancient genealogy," at which scholars would not dare level such criticisms.

[pomba gira]

I am doing good to get the spelling and occasionally grammar correct. Punctuation? *brain failure* LOL

That's "I am doing WELL to get the spelling..." *hides*

[Troy Spiral (13)]

You better do a good job hiding. I spank naughty brats well.

[Brenda Starrr]

I hate:

mabey vs. maybe

gonna, ganna vs. going to

these ones/those ones vs. these and those. For WTF do you need to add "ones" to those words??

ANYTHING typed by stoned people on this board.

If you can't spell simple words, how the F@CK did you make it through school? Did yur techur let u pass becuz u were cyute?

[Brenda Starrr]

Oh...

WHY do people use the "'s" in places where they shouldn't? I see this on business cards, marquis, etc.

For example:

On Mother's Day (bullshit Hallmark holiday), I drove by a car wash AND a restaurant that said "Mom's love our gift certificate's!!"

REALLY? Mom is love our gift certificate is?

REALLY????

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I hate:

mabey vs. maybe

gonna, ganna vs. going to

these ones/those ones vs. these and those. For WTF do you need to add "ones" to those words??

ANYTHING typed by stoned people on this board.

If you can't spell simple words, how the F@CK did you make it through school? Did yur techur let u pass becuz u were cyute?

Oh...

WHY do people use the "'s" in places where they shouldn't? I see this on business cards, marquis, etc.

For example:

On Mother's Day (bullshit Hallmark holiday), I drove by a car wash AND a restaurant that said "Mom's love our gift certificate's!!"

REALLY? Mom is love our gift certificate is?

REALLY????

Is "hate" the proper word? I tend to reserve hate for things like child molestation and people that talk during the movies.

Even so, I know I have been guilty of several of the crimes you list. Despite that, I do TRY to have decent spelling and grammar. Occasionally I just get a bit sloppy, but more often, I just do not realize what I did wrong.

What I dislike is whole posts full of garbage writing, as if they can't even be bothered to make the slightest attempt at not blinding my brain with random spew.

Currently I think my biggest crime is an overuse of commas and run-on sentences. But I am trying!

[Brenda Starrr]

Is "hate" the proper word? I tend to reserve hate for things like child molestation and people that talk during the movies.

Even so, I know I have been guilty of several of the crimes you list. Despite that, I do TRY to have decent spelling and grammar. Occasionally I just get a bit sloppy, but more often, I just do not realize what I did wrong.

What I dislike is whole posts full of garbage writing, as if they can't even be bothered to make the slightest attempt at not blinding my brain with random spew.

Currently I think my biggest crime is an overuse of commas and run-on sentences. But I am trying!

If it makes my flesh crawl, I hate it. And yes, run-on sentences are AWFUL. I'm only guilty of that if I'm drunk, which is rare. And whomever made up those stupid LOL Cats should be beaten with a stick. Look at what it did with Marc's grammar!!

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Mixing up it's and its

Wrong: The dog wagged it's tail.

Right: The dog wagged its tail.

Wrong: Each program has it's own quirks.

Right: Each program has its own quirks.

Either I never knew or I totally forgot. The apostrophe looks correct in the spots were the 'net is telling me it is incorrect. Glad to know I can still get a 4.0 without knowing this fascinating fact.

Not sure what rule this falls under. The "It's" being incorrect that is.

[TygerLili]

This one is actually spelling, not grammar, but I figured it could still go here.

So many people here spell "definitely" as "definately" (or "defiantly") that I was actually starting to wonder if I've been spelling it wrong all along and had to look it up. According to the dictionary, however, my spelling is correct

My spelling sucks, by the way. I know there are a few words that I habitually spell incorrectly, and there would be a lot more that would be messed up if I didn't look them up because I was unsure of the correct spelling.

Edited July 3, 2009 by TygerLili