This topic has come up before, but after reading the article linked below (and I've seen several pieces on Ms. Truss's book, which is selling like Happy Meals), I thought I'd start it up again.

Any queries, peeves, constant mistakes you make? Is insisting upon proper grammar conservative? What is proper grammar in the context of our rapidly changing American English language? Is online writing doing irreperable damage to English--not just grammar, but spelling, word usage, etc.? Or is it a lack of reading and teaching of English grammar?

Grammar crusade spells bestseller

My main peeves:

1) Apostrophes to create plurals: English has one of the simplest and easiest means for creating plurals--just add "s" or "es," except for a few words of Germanic-Saxon origin (like "child," "man," mouse," etc.--and some of these don't even change at all, like "sheep.") Yet people persist in adding an apostrophe. WHY?

-shoe's IS wrong as a plural (it means belongs to the shoe--the shoe's color; nice shoes; the shoes' color)
-"the hummingbird's flight's..." (what does this mean? The flights of the hummingbird? Of the hummingbirds--in which case it would be "hummingbirds'"? Does it refer to something that belongs to the flights of the hummingbird that isn't named?)

2) Confusion about it's and its:
It's = it is (it's a contraction)
Its = belongs to "it"

3) Confusion about other contractions that are homonyms of possessive pronouns, like "they're" vs. "their" and "you're" vs. "your" and "who's" vs. "whose" (I mix this last one up a lot)

My constant mistake/error:

The restricted and unrestricted relative pronouns "that" and "which." I actually went by a grammar book, and found that the online grammar checker in MS Word sometimes gets it wrong. I know that after a preposition ("after" for example), you use "which," but there are times when I muddle the "that" and "which."

Affect/effect.

"That" should be used when the phrase that follows must be used to clarify the subject. "That" phrases are never set off by commas. Example: "The website that I most enjoy is Outsports.com." There are a lot of websites out and about, the "that" phrase signifies which one.

"Which" should be used when the phrase that follows can be deleted without causing confusion as to the subject. "Which" phrases are always set off by commas. Example: "The Outsports.com website, which has a great discussion board, is on of my favorite on-line sites." Because the reader knows which site I'm referring to, "which" and the commas are used--they can be deleted without affecting the meaning.

The same idea can be used when writing "who" clauses in sentences: if the phrase isn't needed to identify, use commas. If the phrase is needed, don't use the commas.

Insane rantings of an out-of-work editor. Hope it clarifies.

I could care less.

I normally do fairly well with the grammar thing, but this is one I've never sussed. Give me a watertight, exception-free example.

Please.

I can only go by what "seems" right. I guess it's my propensity for spelling that sees me through, but I still have many large, gaping holes in my sentence structure.

By the way, the only people who can correct me without my being bitchy are those whom I'd submit to.

Did I do all right?

Should that be "I couldn't care less"? Sure, we all know you have the ability to not care less, but does that get across what you're trying to say.

One I'm careful about is:

Can I help you? vs. May I help you?

Of course I can help them, but do they want me to?

Interesting--now we're on semantics and linguistics--ah, our beloved language.

"I could care less" means I care, but I could actually care even less. So he cares.

"I couldn't care less" means I don't care and couldn't give less than the current low level of care.

But actually, Golfer's initial statement often is intended to signify its opposite, the second statement. Linguists among us, what do you call this?

***

"Affect" is a verb meaning to impact.
"affect" is a noun meaning an artifice, a feeling, etc.

"Effect" is a verb meaning to bring about, enact, etc.
"effect" is a noun meaning a result, an outcome, etc.

AFFECT

"The deaths in Spain affected me more than I thought."
"His British accent is an affect; he's originally from Alabama."

EFFECT

"The City Council has finally effected a change in the laws involving penalties for repeated traffic violations."
"The effect of her jokes is to make all of us feel happy."

***

Then there are the older English verbs that look similar but are quite different--these trip up my students constantly, especially the lie-lay-lie trio:

To lie (lie down)--I lie, I lay, I've lain down for an hour
To lay (to set down, have sex with)--I lay, I laid, I've laid the keys on the table
To lie (to tell an untruth)--I lie, I lied, I've lied about being a Quaker

To wind (to rotate, twist)--I wind, I wound, I've wound the clock
To wind (to knock the breath out of)--I wind, I winded, I've winded everyone who boxed me

To bind (to tie up)--I bind, I bound, I've bound my fingers together
To bound (to jump)--I bound, I bounded, I've bounded up the stairs
To bend (to bow, fold)--I bend, I bent, I've bent the hanger

To bare (to show, reveal, strip)--I bare, I bared, I've bared my soul
To bear (to carry, put up with)--I bear, I bore, I've borne tribulations
To be born--I'm born, I was born, I've been born only once
To bore (to drill through, be tedious)--I bore, I bored, I've bored through the wall

To fly (to soar through the air)--I fly, I flew, I've flown across America
To flow (to move like water)--the river flows, the creek flowed, the glaciers have flowed through here

To hang (to suspend)--I hang, I hung, I've hung pictures
To hang (to kill by hanging)--I hang, I hanged, I've hanged 30 killers

[ March 14, 2004, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Lie lay laid lain lying laying (fibbing, reclining, placing?) [transitive, intransitive?]

To this day the whole slew drives me so crazy that I tend to avoid them altogether, whenever possible.

Another weird one that just bugs the crap out of me - people writing "should of" instead of "should have." As in, "I should of paid more attention in my junior high English class."

[ March 15, 2004, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: Jim ]

I don't know what you call it... but I actually laughed out loud when I read your comments. Touche. I love catching people on what I think are obvious grammatical mistakes like that (well, obvious to me). However, as we know, colloquial English isn't always "proper." Purists rail over the improper use of the English language (I sometimes do this myself), but it's important to remember that the language does change over time; what was once improper, can, over time, become proper usage. I'm sure one of our editor friends would love to fix that last sentence.

On a related topic, what about the use of emoticons in emails, instant messages, and online board postings? They are very helpful in communicating tone and/or intent in these forms of communication. Is it unreasonable to suggest that one day they may also be used in books, magazines, or newspapers? Discuss amongst yourselves.

I agree completely, although I understand where it comes from (people making "should have," into "should've" and then not hearing it correctly). But to me that shows that you do not know English. I will admit that when I speak, it probably sounds like "should of." But when I write, I use the correct words.

In many of the above posts, our grammarians are ending sentences in prepositions. I know this is technically incorrect, but have the rules been relaxed? The rule often makes for awkward verbal conversations.

PS, LOL re: your laughing out loud! I was actually admonished by a proctor when I took the LSAT for laughing at some of the strained constructions in the grammar section of the test. Let's just say my sense of humor is not understood by all! :cool:

FT, how about this one, in addition to your excellent examples: use of cases other than the possessive when modifying a gerund, as in "a case of me laughing out loud." Gerunds ALWAYS take the possessive case, so the proper form is "a case of my laughing out loud."

As for emoticons in formal, printed writing, I say leave 'em out. They fill a shorthand need in e-writing, mainly in a concession to time. But in print, they're a cop-out because the writer should have the skill to use the actual words themselves to express his thoughts w/o resort to symbols other than metaphor or simile.

I've fretted over which and that to no end and I must say the conventional guide of restrictive/non-restrictive clause is of only limited use, especially in a whole other class of constructions where the two can be used interchangeably, which then makes the possibility of using alliteration a factor in deciding which to use. I'll take the advice to use "which" after a preposition to heart, but let's leave it at that.

This gets further complicated when the relative pronoun is grammatically affected by the clause it introduces: "The website for which I have the highest regard is Outsports." But what leadest many a hypercorrective grammarian astray is that this is NOT an indication that "that" and "which" are declinable. Only when a preposition is used is this necessary. So, "This is the dog THAT I adopted" even though "that" is in an accusative position.

Other compliants:

1) Disregard of the subjunctive: "If I WERE [not was] ..."

2) Noun-pronoun agreement: "Each board member must take HIS/HER [not their] computer."

3) Good/well. Generally this rule is observed. However: How are you? I am well! Not likely. You are good and you feel good [feel in this istance is just a copulative connecting a noun with an adjective]. If the descriptor describes an object it does NOT take the form of an adverb. I have spent many sleepless nights pondering the sentence "My back feels bad/ly."

4) I/Me: "My mother slapped the shit out of my sister and ME [not I]."


There is a great book called Paradigms Lost written by former New York Magazine critic John Simon about English grammar. It is a real treat if you are into this kind of thing. It is a rather conservaitve look at language (hell, it makes William Safire look like Noam Chompsky).

Yeah, "I could care less" was a joke. Having to listen to otherwise intelligent people say that is one of my biggest pet peeves.

It's usually best to keep things simple. Instead of saying, "The website that I most enjoy is Outsports.com," just say "Outsports.com is my favorite website," or better, "Outsports ROCKS!"

The two that always get me hung up are: lay/lie and good/well. Otherwise, I do a fairly descent job with it's/its, too/to/two, me/I, etc.

This thread makes me think of the David Sedaris book "Me Talk Pretty One Day"

Its/it's is absolutely the one that drives me up the wall most, and I see it all the time, even in the legal profession, whose members pride themselves on their writing ability.

Contractions are inappropriate in formal writing. "It's" is a contraction. Therefore "it's" is inappropriate in formal writing.

"It's" is inappropriate in formal writing. All legal writing is formal. Therefore "it's" is inappropriate in legal writing.

One and only one exception -- if you're writing a direct quotation, and the speaker you're quoting used "it's", then you can too.

The misuse of apostrophes in plurals also sends me into fits of irrational apoplexy (but I keep it bottled up).

The Sedaris book is hilarious. But seriously, French is certainly tougher than English in terms of verb conjugations, etc. And let's not get into German, which still has genders, uses a range of auxiliary verbs, throws the verb forms to the ends of sentences, etc. Let's thank those Vikings and then those Normans for freeing us from these burdens!

Joe, you're right, though a longitudinal study of nuns' use of sentence structure showed that the ones who used more complex sentences in their youth had a far lower tendency towards Alzheimers and greater mental acuity in old age. (Now, how was that for a long sentence?)

Actually, English usage has allowed the ending of sentences with prepositions for hundreds of years. The influence of Latin grammar, I believe, challenged this. The oft-attributed quip by Winston Churchill (I take the version from the Oxford Companion to the English Language) is always apt in this regard: "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put." It is okay to end sentences with prepositions--in English.

The past subjunctive using the verb "to be" still does exist, at least among many writers, but the present subjunctive is almost completely lost. What is the present subjunctive? Well, with verbs of command, doubt, there was originally a conjugated form: "I urge that you be here tomorrow" (as opposed to "I urge that you ARE here tomorrow"), "I fear lest he hear what I know," etc. This all sounds pretty antiquated, so I think it's one of those things that's totally evolved.

A French writer recently published a novel using lots of emoticons. If a British or American or Australian or Irish or Canadian writer hasn't already done so, one surely is coming!

Good vs. well. Unfortunately, VERY FEW people on TV use adverbs with verbs properly--most people I've observed say, "He ran good" or "They really sang bad" etc. Not "he ran well" or "they really sang badly." Then there's Apple's horrible phrase, "Think different." Aaarrrgghhhh!!! Do they mean, "Think the WORD 'different'" which is correct, or do they mean "Think differently?" (Of course I see the irony of the grammatical challenge arising out of this phrase.) The adverbial forms are going the way of the dodo bird--or we'll be like German and Dutch (again), where there's no difference between the adjectival and adverb forms--"schlecht" means both "bad" and "badly."

The verb to be, like verbs of perception and feeling, usually takes the adjective, while most other verbs take the adverb. "This tastes good" vs. " he swims well." However, when "well" is used with "to be," it has a different meaning--usually indicating "healthy" or "satisfactory"--and it has had this meaning for centuries (Shakespeare: "All's well that ends well," etc.)

Finally, bad->worse->worst. Good->better->best.
Clean->Cleaner->Cleanest. NOT Most cleanest!
Fascinating->More fascinating->Most fascinating. NOT Most fascinatingest.
Some rare usages like Lewis Carroll's "curiouser and curiouser" appear in literary language, but if in doubt, use "more" and "most," except with "bad" and "good."

Never end a sentence with a preposition unless you have nothing better to end it with.

I knew we were bound to go there eventually! wink

My pet peeves:

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hypercorrection (errors caused by trying to hard to sound "correct"), like "bring it to Jim and I" (or, worse yet, "to Jim and myself") instead of "to Jim and me"
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">unnecessary commas between subject and verb (most often found in complex sentences, where someone inserted it "to tell me where to take a breath" ... you wouldn't say "I, went to the store," would you?)
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"most complete" and "most "unique" (either something is complete or it isn't, and either it's unique or it isn't)
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">homonym errors like those mentioned by fantomas

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
There. I feel better now.

You should say:
Never end a sentence with a preposition unless you have nothing with which better to end it.

Actually, as I intended to indicate with the emoticon, I was being facetious. The no-prep rule was a 19th Century attempt to impose Latin grammar on English (under the theory that classical Greek and Rome were the fount of all wisdom, which is a debate for another time ... I intend neither to idolize nor to demonize DWEMs here, being descended from same).

Reminds me of a Robert Plant line: "You were pumping iron while I was pumping irony." Whatever that meant.

This is a good place to bring up Bill Bryson's "The Mother Tongue," an informal and funny history of English. He writes that in the 17th and 18th centuries English writers "discovered" Latin and tried to shoehorn English into Latin grammar, even when this made no sense. For instance, in Latin it's impossible to split an infinitive, but in English, it's possible. Therefore, to split an infinitive became a no-no in English.

And if you read "The Mother Tongue" and like it, move on to his sequel, "Made in America," an account of how American English grew out of British English.

Technically 'his/her' would be the correct usage, but to me it is tedious and awkward to have to use 'his/her' repeatedly (or 'her/his' for the politically correct among us!) Since we have no 'neutral gender' in English, I think 'their' has become more and more acceptable. But being the plural possessive, 'their' doesn't seem quite right either.

Hmmm...I know that Americans are stingy when it comes to the use of the letter 'u' but I thought the root word was spelled 'curious' even in the United States. In Canada, there is a word 'curios' but it refers to strange objects such as shrunken heads.

Back to the correct usage of the apostrophe, I don't think anyone has mentioned how to signify possession when the noun already ends in an 's'. Does one write "the boss' daughter" or "the boss's daughter"? I've seen it both ways, but I'm never sure which one is correct, or if both are acceptable. Similarly with surnames...my own ends in an 's' and I don't know whether to use just an apostrophe or "'s" when indicating possession.

Finally, the age-old 'will' vs 'shall'. I'm sure I learned a grammar rule about this in elementary school but it's one of those things I never retained. So I looked it up in the Gage Canadian Dictionary and found that 'shall' is to be used in questions to ask what one is to do, eg "Shall we go? Shall I wait?" Also, 'shall' can be used in statements that express obligation or command, eg "You shall pay attention". So from now on, I shall remember this rule.

another pet peeve:

fewer/less

fewer in number
less in amount

Danimal, in the interests of hypercorrectivity, it's "font" of wisdom.

I wish English still used its second person plural, "ye," instead of "you all, y'all or you(se) guys." It would really come in handy and is simple enough to be easily learned, retained and actually used.

Robert Plant was always good for great lyrics. Methinks he meant that one was focusing on the physical while he was focusing on the mental. Cf. Harry Hamlin's line in "Making Love," "The only jumping I did in high school was to conclusions."

"Mother Tongue" IS a great book and a good read.

I was taught that if you pronounce the second "s", then it should be written that way. For one boss it would be "the boss's daughter", but for two bosses it is "the bosses' daughters." For a group of boys it would be "the boys' father". For the most part it depends on if the word ends with a soft "s", or a "z"-like hard "s". For the last name Jones, some people pronounce the second possessive "s" and some don't, so I think writing it either way is acceptable.

My grammar bitch: Restroom signs that say "Mens" and "Womens" I'm an architect, and I've actually seen architectural drawings with the restrooms labeled that way.

So people argue. When I write, I do not find the him/her construct clunky at all. I avoid OVERusing it, for sure, but I certainly don't cringe when I write it. When I speak, I am careful of my audience but typically will just choose one or the other (that is, either "he" or "she"). I am comfortable saying, for example, "each sperm-bank donor much fill HIS specimen cup" without fear of Gatorjamie sicking her gang of militant lesbians on me.

Amen to SFP, by the way. Fewer/less and lay/lie grate on me like nails on a chalk board.

You rang?

Sorry, bad joke about the Grammar B*tch title... as a proud owner of a bachelor's degree in English, I feel I have a thing or two to add to this thread.

Regarding their, I either use a plural construct or I pick a gender and go with it. Their is not the gender neutral alternative. Never has been. Hopefully never will be.

The Elements of Style recommends:

Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

• Charles's friend
• Burns's poems
• the witch's malice

Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by

• the heel of Achilles
• the laws of Moses
• the temple of Isis

I think The Elements of Style is one of the most important books out there for people who care about writing well; and I agree with its statement of the rule for forming plurals.

BUT . . . my copy of it does not have the Achilles heel example in it, and I don't think yours can either. Have you EVER actually seen or heard "heel of Achilles" anywhere?

The on-line version is the original (Strunk without White). But I admit that I wouldn't write, "Mark Prior is out because of an inflamed tendon of Achilles."

[ March 15, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: SheaBoy ]

As this thread now includes peeves relating to usage, I'll add the misuse of "hopefully." It does not mean "I hope" nor does it mean "it is to be hoped." Thus, "Hopefully, I'll make the meeting" is accurate only if I mean I'll make the meeting with a hopeful attitude. Pure bosh!

On an previous thread on this subject, I mentioned the abuse "literally" receives. The morning following the Academy Awards, I heard a television reporter say that "literally everyone in the world watched the Oscars." Amazing. I'd say he should be shot but if the bullet went into his head, nothing would stop it from flying into a wall opposite.

~Adam

I still can't help but think of David Sedaris' "Jesus Shaves" bit ... Kazaa users (et al) should be able to download a live performance of the monologue. It deals with his attempts to learn French and translating complex grammatical phrases. And, of course, religion.

David Sedaris is my hero.

"Is thems the thoughts of cows?"

I likewise remember learning in school that "unique" was the same as "one-of-a-kind," so constructions like "most unique" and "more unique" were always unnecessary.

However, when I recently saw someone use one of those phrases I desperately wanted to be a smarty-pants and correct them, but I struggled to locate a source to back me up (or should I say "up with which to back me" ?). The dictionaries all included "unusual" as a definition for "unique," no longer requiring something that is unique to be one-of-a-kind and allowing there to be degrees of "uniqueness."

Gmg, I believe "ye" is the old vocative of the plural "you," which goes back pretty far. English used to have a second personal singular "thou" (acc. "thee," gen. "thy", etc.) pronoun, which I believe only exists in old poetry and among the Quakers (does it still?). Does anyone know why "thou" went out of favor? It--and similar forms--still exist in most other European languages, though it usually is reserved for children, social inferiors, and close friends and loved ones.

Some more common word confusions:

to flaunt = to show off
to flout = to disregard, ignore

"HIllary flaunted her new pantsuit and her newly passed bill."
"The dictator flouted repeated threats to disarm."

to compliment = to convey positive thoughts about s.o.
to complement = to fulfill, satisfy

"I complimented my boss on his kindness."
"My new raise complements all the other good things I've recently experienced."

flammable = inflammable (from "to inflame")

lend vs. loan -- the British primarily use "to lend" as the verb, and "loan" as the noun, but in American English we retain both as the verb, and "loan" as the noun

backward vs. backwards -- both forms are acceptable, and American English has retained the older, less formal form with the "s" (in German the "s" still exists)

Some homophonic mistakes:

Right - wrong
-------------------
Copyright - copywright
due to - do to
to do - to due (a big to-do about nothing)
guerilla war - gorilla war
expatriate - ex-patriot
peace of mind - piece of mind
by in large - by and large
toe the line - tow the line

Did you fail to make complete sentences on purpose, or were you joking about the English degree?

Isn't the way we pronounce "indict" ridiculous? What a language! I guess the "obvious" pronunciation would give too many men the heeby-jeebies. wink

Etymology: alteration of earlier indite, from Anglo-French enditer, from Old French, to write down, ultimately from Latin indicere to proclaim, from in- toward + dicere to say.

I don't quite understand what the "alteration" process would have been. Some publishers misprint perhaps.

I've accepted the use of "their" rather than "his or her" which really seems unnecessarily cumbersome. We must adapt or will surely follow the French into the third tier. I very much admire the way English, American English in particular , so readily changes, creates new words, imports words from other languages etc.

[ October 08, 2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Torgauer ]

"By and large" is correct.

I can't tell you how many times someone on some internet board has asked the rest of us to "bare with me", which always sounds a tad risque. Of course they mean "bear with me".
Another common boo-boo, using "flounder" to mean a desperate, aimless search for an answer. Flounder is a fish. They mean "founder".
I agree with the pet peeve on "most unique". Others on my list are "free gift". Whenever I'm offerred a free gift I ask how it differs from a gift I have to pay for and get really blank looks. Also, "Jewish rabbi", "brutal rape/brutal murder", "true fact" et al.
And of course I get pissed when drug companies, insurance companies and so on continually refer to doctors as "he". My doctors are female. Today I corrected someone TWICE and when I got "he" a third time pointed out that being a doctor does not require a penis.

Food for thought:

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes; but the plural of ox became oxen not oxes. One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese, yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice; yet the plural of house is houses, not hice. If the plural of man is always called men, why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet, and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet? If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and three would be those, yet hat in the plural would never be hose, and the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren, but though we say mother, we never say methren. Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him, but imagine the feminine, she, shis and shim.

Some reasons to be grateful if you grew up speaking English:
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8) At the Army base, a bass was painted on the head of a bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) After a number of Novocain injections, my jaw got number.
19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
22) I spent last evening evening out a pile of dirt.

Screwy pronunciations can mess up your mind!
For example... If you have a rough cough, climbing can be tough when going through the bough on a tree!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.
We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm goes off by going on.
English was invented by people, across the ages, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn't a race at all).
That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

For you amusement I'm going to copy and paste something I downloaded a while ago:

Oops. The copy/paste was the food for thought item. Bad spacing.

ROFLMAO, but remember our president said OB-GYN's need to "pratice their...luuuuv". A penis could be useful for some patience.

Try this poem called Chaos:

Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.
I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy;
Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear;
Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer.
Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it! 10
Just compare heart, hear and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word.
Sword and sward, retain and Britain
(Mind the latter how it's written).
Made has not the sound of bade,
Say-said, pay-paid, laid but plaid.
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague,
But be careful how you speak,
Say: gush, bush, steak, streak, break, bleak,
Previous, precious, fuchsia, via, 21
Recipe, pipe, studding-sail, choir;
Woven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.
Say, expecting fraud and trickery:
Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,
Branch, ranch, measles, topsails, aisles,
Missiles, similes, reviles.
Wholly, holly, signal, signing,
Same, examining, but mining, 30
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far.
From "desire": desirable-admirable from "admire",
Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier,
Topsham, brougham, renown, but known,
Knowledge, done, lone, gone, none, tone,
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel.
Gertrude, German, wind and wind,
Beau, kind, kindred, queue, mankind, 40
Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,
Reading, Reading, heathen, heather.
This phonetic labyrinth
Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth,
plinth.
Have you ever yet endeavoured
To pronounce revered and severed,
Demon, lemon, ghoul, foul, soul,
Peter, petrol and patrol?
Billet does not end like ballet;
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. 50
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Banquet is not nearly parquet,
Which exactly rhymes with khaki.
Discount, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward,
Ricocheted and crocheting, croquet?
Right! Your pronunciation's OK.
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live. 60
Is your R correct in higher?
Keats asserts it rhymes Thalia.
Hugh, but hug, and hood, but hoot,
Buoyant, minute, but minute.
Say abscission with precision,
Now: position and transition;
Would it tally with my rhyme
If I mentioned paradigm?
Twopence, threepence, tease are easy,
But cease, crease, grease and greasy? 70
Cornice, nice, valise, revise,
Rabies, but lullabies.
Of such puzzling words as nauseous,
Rhyming well with cautious, tortious,
You'll envelop lists, I hope,
In a linen envelope.
Would you like some more? You'll have it!
Affidavit, David, davit.
To abjure, to perjure. Sheik
Does not sound like Czech but ache. 80
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, loch, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed but vowed.
Mark the difference, moreover,
Between mover, plover, Dover.
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice,
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label. 90
Petal, penal, and canal,
Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal,
Suit, suite, ruin. Circuit, conduit
Rhyme with "shirk it" and "beyond it",
But it is not hard to tell
Why it's pall, mall, but Pall Mall.
Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron,
Timber, climber, bullion, lion,
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor, 100
Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
Has the A of drachm and hammer.
Pussy, hussy and possess,
Desert, but desert, address.
Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants
Hoist in lieu of flags left pennants.
Courier, courtier, tomb, bomb, comb,
Cow, but Cowper, some and home.
"Solder, soldier! Blood is thicker",
Quoth he, "than liqueur or liquor", 110
Making, it is sad but true,
In bravado, much ado.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Pilot, pivot, gaunt, but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand and grant.
Arsenic, specific, scenic,
Relic, rhetoric, hygienic.
Gooseberry, goose, and close, but close,
Paradise, rise, rose, and dose. 120
Say inveigh, neigh, but inveigle,
Make the latter rhyme with eagle.
Mind! Meandering but mean,
Valentine and magazine.
And I bet you, dear, a penny,
You say mani-(fold) like many,
Which is wrong. Say rapier, pier,
Tier (one who ties), but tier.
Arch, archangel; pray, does erring
Rhyme with herring or with stirring? 130
Prison, bison, treasure trove,
Treason, hover, cover, cove,
Perseverance, severance. Ribald
Rhymes (but piebald doesn't) with nibbled.
Phaeton, paean, gnat, ghat, gnaw,
Lien, psychic, shone, bone, pshaw.
Don't be down, my own, but rough it,
And distinguish buffet, buffet; [back to top] Brood, stood, roof, rook, school, wool, boon,
Worcester, Boleyn, to impugn. 140
Say in sounds correct and sterling
Hearse, hear, hearken, year and yearling.
Evil, devil, mezzotint,
Mind the Z! (A gentle hint.)
Now you need not pay attention
To such sounds as I don't mention,
Sounds like pores, pause, pours and paws,
Rhyming with the pronoun yours;
Nor are proper names included,
Though I often heard, as you did, 150
Funny rhymes to unicorn,
Yes, you know them, Vaughan and Strachan.
No, my maiden, coy and comely,
I don't want to speak of Cholmondeley.
No. Yet Froude compared with proud
Is no better than McLeod.
But mind trivial and vial,
Tripod, menial, denial,
Troll and trolley, realm and ream,
Schedule, mischief, schism, and scheme. 160
Argil, gill, Argyll, gill. Surely
May be made to rhyme with Raleigh,
But you're not supposed to say
Piquet rhymes with sobriquet.
Had this invalid invalid
Worthless documents? How pallid,
How uncouth he, couchant, looked,
When for Portsmouth I had booked!
Zeus, Thebes, Thales, Aphrodite,
Paramour, enamoured, flighty, 170
Episodes, antipodes,
Acquiesce, and obsequies.
Please don't monkey with the geyser,
Don't peel 'taters with my razor,
Rather say in accents pure:
Nature, stature and mature.
Pious, impious, limb, climb, glumly,
Worsted, worsted, crumbly, dumbly,
Conquer, conquest, vase, phase, fan,
Wan, sedan and artisan. 180
The TH will surely trouble you
More than R, CH or W.
Say then these phonetic gems:
Thomas, thyme, Theresa, Thames.
Thompson, Chatham, Waltham, Streatham,
There are more but I forget 'em-
Wait! I've got it: Anthony,
Lighten your anxiety.
The archaic word albeit
Does not rhyme with eight-you see it; 190
With and forthwith, one has voice,
One has not, you make your choice.
Shoes, goes, does*. Now first say: finger;
Then say: singer, ginger, linger.
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, age,
Hero, heron, query, very,
Parry, tarry fury, bury,
Dost, lost, post, and doth, cloth, loth,
Job, Job, blossom, bosom, oath. 200
Faugh, oppugnant, keen oppugners,
Bowing, bowing, banjo-tuners
Holm you know, but noes, canoes,
Puisne, truism, use, to use?
Though the difference seems little,
We say actual, but victual,
Seat, sweat, chaste, caste, Leigh, eight, height,
Put, nut, granite, and unite.
Reefer does not rhyme with deafer,
Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer. 210
Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,
Hint, pint, senate, but sedate.
Gaelic, Arabic, pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific;
Tour, but our, dour, succour, four,
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Say manoeuvre, yacht and vomit,
Next omit, which differs from it
Bona fide, alibi
Gyrate, dowry and awry. 220
Sea, idea, guinea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion with battalion,
Rally with ally; yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay!
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, receiver. 230
Never guess-it is not safe,
We say calves, valves, half, but Ralf.
Starry, granary, canary,
Crevice, but device, and eyrie,
Face, but preface, then grimace,
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Bass, large, target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, oust, joust, and scour, but scourging;
Ear, but earn; and ere and tear
Do not rhyme with here but heir. 240
Mind the O of off and often
Which may be pronounced as orphan,
With the sound of saw and sauce;
Also soft, lost, cloth and cross.
Pudding, puddle, putting. Putting?
Yes: at golf it rhymes with shutting.
Respite, spite, consent, resent.
Liable, but Parliament.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen, 250
Monkey, donkey, clerk and jerk,
Asp, grasp, wasp, demesne, cork, work.
A of valour, vapid vapour,
S of news (compare newspaper),
G of gibbet, gibbon, gist,
I of antichrist and grist,
Differ like diverse and divers,
Rivers, strivers, shivers, fivers.
Once, but nonce, toll, doll, but roll,
Polish, Polish, poll and poll. 260
Pronunciation-think of Psyche!-
Is a paling, stout and spiky.
Won't it make you lose your wits
Writing groats and saying 'grits'?
It's a dark abyss or tunnel
Strewn with stones like rowlock, gunwale,
Islington, and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.
Don't you think so, reader, rather,
Saying lather, bather, father? 270
Finally, which rhymes with enough,
Though, through, bough, cough, hough,
sough, tough??
Hiccough has the sound of sup.
My advice is: GIVE IT UP!

To revive an old thread, I saw a sign on a dry cleaning establishment that reads:

OPEN 7 DAYS A WEEK. CLOSED SUNDAYS.

Perhaps the Beatles were correct--eight days a week.

~Adam

I once had an ex-boyfriend write me an email that said, "Your the best, so just except the complement." Good thing he was beautiful!!

And this guy wrote comic books for a living! Luckily, he did the illustrations!

Of course I cannot stand the misuse of apostrophes, but I've got three other grammar errors that drive me nuts.

The first is when people refer to another by using "that," as in, "I dislike people *that* voted for Nader." "That" should only be used when referring to an object and while Nader voters may not qualify as sentient beings wink , they are people and should be referred to by use of "Who": "I dislike people *who* voted for Nader."

The second grammar pet peeve is when people fail to make their gerunds possessive. "My diary details MY winning the contest," NOT, "My diary details ME winning the contest."

Third: misunderstanding how to use "I" vs. "me". It's rather simple: if talking about yourself as the subject of the sentence, use "I". "I went to the store." When you are talking about yourself as the object of the sentence, use "me". "You can trust me." Adding another party as the object of the sentence does not change things: "You can trust Stanley and me." (NOT "You can trust Stanley and I" -- if Stanley disappeared, you would never say, "You can trust I.") And don't even get me started on "He was talking about Tom and I's party..." eek!

[ November 04, 2005, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: aquaman ]

My biggest grief is that the spelling and grammar checkers in most word processing programs are totally pathetic. I use MS Word frequently, and it is just so limited in its ability. Adding to the dictionary just assures that it ignores more mistakes when you do make them.

Especially for technical subjects like technology, medicine, engineering, etc - there should be a better WP upgrade for those of us who can read and write above a fourth grade level.

I have finally given up on my other pet peeve of people of every walk of life calling themselves engineers even though they have never seen the inside of an engineering classroom - 'software engineers', 'systems engineers', even 'maintainance engineers' and 'domestic engineers' - UGHHHHH!!!!!!!; it is a lost cause.

Worse still are the number of people out there who call themselves 'Analysts' who could barely pass an A+ exam and have never taken a course in symbolic logic - or any kind of logic for that matter, in their lives.

Rob