Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Heh – I’m the same way. It gives me a kind of warm feeling to hear “fewer.”
Unfortunately, that battle has been lost. I think every dictionary now lists the new meaning. I’m still holding out hope for “disinterested.”
And Judishuary Square, where the Nucular Regulatory Commission is sometimes in litigation? I’m bummed about “begs the question.” I can’t remember the last time I heard it used correctly, and incorrect usages have become very popular in the media lately. I don’t think it will survive another 5 years. |
| My pet peeve is "if he would have ... " instead of "if he had...." I also don't like "different than" instead of "different from." But I think that latter battle has been lost as well. |
|
"a lot" = a plot of land
You finish your homework. A steak is well-done. |
|
Here's an article that mentions several of my peeves:
http://www.slate.com/id/2290536/ |
| It is "no holds barred" , no "no holes barred" |
It's "champing at the bit," not "chomping at the bit." If you want to use a colorful figure of speech, at least get it right
|
|
It's "discomfited," not "discomforted."
"Unfazed," not "unphased." "Case in point," not "case and point." "Make do," not "make due." And using "hopefully" in the way most people do is incorrect. It's an adverb. |
My former boss told me on several occasions I needed to "flush out" the details.
I also hate the use of "since" to mean "because," though I know it technically acceptable. |
|
It's "for all intents and purposes" not "for all intensive purposes"
And you technically leave a shit, you don't take one.
|
I'm the "nitpicking" poster. I'm usually a grammar Nazi but in this case the poster I responded to is just over the top. And BTW, it's "who" not "that." |
|
Okay, but I have question for you. Do you ever find yourself in a casual writing situation where to use the exactly correct usage of the word or phrase will extend the length of the sentence beyond your presumed interest of the reader? Also, do you think that rules of grammar should be just as rigid for conversational writing as they are for scholarly writing?
Trust me, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking your opinion. |
Oh my gosh. I had a huge argument with a former boss of mine over that phrase. He insisted it was flush, and said my "interpretation" was "offensive." He got mad when I tried to explain the difference and refused to speak to me for the rest of the day. This was for an article that was being published in a reputable journal under his name, so I rewrote the sentence rather than let him look stupid in print. |
| I allow some slack for conversational grammar. I don't roll my eyes if someone says, "What is this for?" In print, however, I'm a Nazi. |
You may be a Nazi, but presumably you are not a coach otherwise beyond conversational grammar, you would not notice if it occurred in scholarly writing. |
| What do grammar nazis do for fun? |