Grammar Issues

[Gillette]

Long ago, I cringed to hear a teacher (not an English teacher) announce it was time for everybody to take THEIR SEATS. I knew that each student had exactly one seat to take and that the pronoun should be singular as well. I knew also that English had used masculine singular forms for centuries as gender-neutral forms. Kids like me were routinely corrected to say it was time for every little body (not just the boy bodies) to take HIS SEAT.

The first thing that echoed in my head reading this was the old response, "Where would you like me to take it?"

Wouldn't it be more correct to say, "Please be seated."?

 

[Bbucko]

Writing incomplete sentences. Drives me nuts. Really.

And if someone can't take the time to construct a properly written and typed post, why should anyone take the time to read it?

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Me no english, me try english write

 

[BIGBULL29]

Nick has a point about "five persons" instead of "five people." It's indeed like saying "five air." Although many prescriptive grammarians of English say it's ok, I think it needs to be rethought.

 

[Calboner]

Nick has a point about "five persons" instead of "five people." It's indeed like saying "five air." Although many prescriptive grammarians of English say it's ok, I think it needs to be rethought.

I don't think that you and Nick can possibly mean what you are saying. Mass nouns are nouns that (1) are always grammatically singular, never plural, and (2) never take an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). They are contrasted with so-called count nouns, which are nouns that either have a plural form or take an indefinite article. The nouns "water" and "air" are complicated cases, because they have both a mass-noun form (e.g., "This glass if full of water," "The air is clean") and a count-noun form (e.g., "He leadeth me beside the still waters," "She assumed an air of innocence"). But that complication does not alter the fact that it is utterly fantastic to suppose that "people" is, or ever has been, a mass noun in English.

We do not say "Much people" (as we would if "people" were a mass noun) but rather "Many people"; and by "we," I mean to include you and Nick, because I don't believe that either of you would ever use "people" in that fashion. We do not say "People is" but "People are." And so on.

Edited to add: Maybe you two are thinking of an analogy with a term like "clothes." This is a word that is grammatically plural and never singular, but we don't say "five clothes," etc.

 

[Meniscus]

I fully support the use of "their" as a third person, singular, neuter pronoun. First of all, such usage long predates the opinion that it's incorrect. Secondly, and more importantly, it's damn useful.

World Wide Words: Singular they
Singular "their" in Jane Austen and elsewhere: Anti-pedantry page

I also dispute the notions that it is incorrect to use the passive voice or to end a sentence with a preposition.

Why use the passive voice?
GMAT Grammar: When to use the Passive voice ????
Go Ahead, Put that Preposition at the End!
Prepositions--Ending Sentences With

I appreciate and admire good grammar, but I have little patience with pedantry.

 

[Mem]

I prefer a careless writer to a Grammar Nazi. The former are kind and the latter are uptight.

 

[bek2335]

Caring about refined expression does not necessarily make one "uptight", Mem. And sometimes bad grammar, poor spelling and sloppy writing and/or speaking demonstrates laziness, stupidy or low socio-economic status.

 

[B_Monster]

This is bullshit, just because some people dont have the advantage of education doesnt make them stupid, it makes them ignorant but this thread is stupid. Screw correct grammer and all you grammer nazis. You all should be asamed uf yourselves

Caring about refined expression does not necessarily make one "uptight", Mem. And sometimes bad grammar, poor spelling and sloppy writing and/or speaking demonstrates laziness, stupidy or low socio-economic status.

 

[dong20]

To add to what Calboner said, in simple terms, a mass noun is generally one that cannot be quantified without some form or unit of measurement.

'People' doesn't really adhere to the rules [in English that's no surprise]; it can be used as a verb, a simple singular or plural noun even [arguably] a collective noun. Furniture, grass, luggage and software are examples of mass nouns, but 'people' is not.

Sorry Nick, your teachers sold you a bum rap. :smile:

 

[B_Hickboy]

I see two things often:
Homonym confusion - you're, your, there, they're, their, there, it's its...
Misplaced apostrophes, forming possessive when the writer meant plural and v.v.
Use of non-words: "alot" and "irregardless" show up around here a lot.

OK, that's three. I see more unintelligible sentences here than any of the places I visit regularly.

 

[dong20]

... this thread is stupid.

Why?

 

[Gl3nn]

What are the most common English Grammar issues you see on websites such as these?

There are a lot...and they annoy me!

 

[bek2335]

monster, I usually think your posts show some good sense. But why should anyone be ashamed for wanting to use good grammar and spell and speak reasonably well? Is ignorance now a virtue because it's "laid back"? For better or for worse, I recoil from people who come off like ignorant low-life. Basic grammar and spelling are taught in elementary school, no? Nearly everyone has the advantage in this day and age of attending at least elementary school. So if those same people are not stupid, you can't explain away their poor language skills by saying they are disadvantaged.

 

[B_Hickboy]

monster, I usually think your posts show some good sense. But why should anyone be ashamed for wanting to use good grammar and spell and speak reasonably well? Is ignorance now a virtue because it's "laid back"? For better or for worse, I recoil from people who come off like ignorant low-life. Basic grammar and spelling are taught in elementary school, no? Nearly everyone has the advantage in this day and age of attending at least elementary school. So if those same people are not stupid, you can't explain away their poor language skills by saying they are disadvantaged.

Yeah!

 

[Enid]

These mistakes bug me:

alot confused for a lot

it's confused for its


Among others which have been mentioned here.

 

[DaveyR]

monster, I usually think your posts show some good sense. But why should anyone be ashamed for wanting to use good grammar and spell and speak reasonably well? Is ignorance now a virtue because it's "laid back"? For better or for worse, I recoil from people who come off like ignorant low-life. Basic grammar and spelling are taught in elementary school, no? Nearly everyone has the advantage in this day and age of attending at least elementary school. So if those same people are not stupid, you can't explain away their poor language skills by saying they are disadvantaged.

I agree with you but only to a point. This site attracts people from all over the World. For some English is a second language and others may never have had a formal education. There are also older people around from Western societies who have never had a formal education.

I know a couple of very intelligent and successful people who cannot read nor write. Someone very close to me struggles with basic grammar and spelling yet is the most talented person I have ever met.

I think we possibly can all be guilty of missing or skimming posts that are not well written and IMHO that's a shame. There can be some real gems amongst those posts.

It's easy to be judgemental of people because of their posting style, grammar and spelling but perhaps we should sometimes stop and think as we really don't know the history of the person posting.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

If you remember this saying, you can't go wrong: "It IS an apostrophe!"

 

[B_Monster]

Your using the word ignorance now and before you used the word stupid, that was your problem. Alot of people dont have the advantages that you had. Take a look at Kentucky for example where they have to drop out of school to support theit immediate familys. your words are to harsh and will alienate these people, your not helping. Can you even imagine if someone reads this babble that didnt have the good luck of higher (or lower) education. Your post are senseless and im surprised you dont realize it, you are educated arent you, maybe, maybe not. Id rather be street smart than book smart.

monster, I usually think your posts show some good sense. But why should anyone be ashamed for wanting to use good grammar and spell and speak reasonably well? Is ignorance now a virtue because it's "laid back"? For better or for worse, I recoil from people who come off like ignorant low-life. Basic grammar and spelling are taught in elementary school, no? Nearly everyone has the advantage in this day and age of attending at least elementary school. So if those same people are not stupid, you can't explain away their poor language skills by saying they are disadvantaged.

 

[Calboner]

I fully support the use of "their" as a third person, singular, neuter pronoun. First of all, such usage long predates the opinion that it's incorrect. Secondly, and more importantly, it's damn useful.

World Wide Words: Singular they
Singular "their" in Jane Austen and elsewhere: Anti-pedantry page

I first saw that Jane Austen page years ago, and it had a stronger effect on me than any of the other arguments that I had seen in defense of the use of "they" with a singular antecedent. It is one thing to say that some of Jane Austen's uses of words are out of fashion, but on this point she is clearly in accord with common English usage as it has existed for centuries, and to suggest that she was sloppy with grammar would be utterly daft. Nonetheless, I still find the use of "they" with a singular antecedent jarring in formal prose (e.g., in scholarly books).

Ooh, that reminds me of another point: It distresses me when people use "i.e." to mean "for example." For example, a form that says, "Enter your first name (i.e., John)" presumes that the person filling out the form is named John. That is not what "i.e." is for. "I.e." stands for "id est," which is Latin for "that is" or "that is to say." The abbreviation for "for example" is "e.g.," which stands for "exempla gratia." I don't expect everybody to know Latin phrases, but people who don't know what they are and what they mean should not use them.