Grammar, Spelling and Usage Peeves

[rousseau]

It's about the phonemes and syllables man.

I'd take the drunk down the street who asks me 'if ur home' over the person who prides themselves on the complexity of their language, when it takes more effort.

While I am the first to declare that laziness is a virtue, I cannot but disagree; Complex language done correctly requires less effort to comprehend than the simplified utterances of the poorly educated. More signal means more redundancy, and leads to fewer errors in comprehension and as a result less effort in order to capture the meaning being conveyed.

It's like the ICAO/NATO phonetic alphabet; The use of more phonemes and syllables reduces the possibility of error. 'N' sounds much the same as 'M', but nobody confuses 'November' for 'Mike'.

Oscar Kilo?

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"

 

[4321lynx]

I like learnt. "I learnt that he was a learned man", sounds better than "I learned that he was a learned man " and is easier to understand when written.

The archives were burnt when the house burned.

 

[fast]

I suck at something I think is called dangling modifier.

The ball hit the window which broke.

I'm trying to say the window broke, but apparently it means the ball broke.

 

[Wiploc]

When people get pedantic about the incorrect usage of 'less' when the correct word is 'fewer', even though the word less is being used because it has fewer phonemes and can easily be understood given context. Sometimes instinct, sub-conscious usage, and plain language leads to better communication than more cogent pedantry.

Other than that.. I'm good.

[pedant]
I don't think "cogent" means what you think it means.
[this is where I'd put the /pedant bit, if I knew how to turn it off]

 

[Angry Floof]

I'd take the drunk down the street who asks me 'if ur home' over the person who prides themselves on the complexity of their language, when it takes more effort.

And often sounds unnecessarily pompous, like people who just like to hear themselves talk.

When people get pedantic about the incorrect usage of 'less' when the correct word is 'fewer', even though the word less is being used because it has fewer phonemes and can easily be understood given context. Sometimes instinct, sub-conscious usage, and plain language leads to better communication than more cogent pedantry.

That's what I'm sayin', man!

 

[Wiploc]

I suck at something I think is called dangling modifier.

The ball hit the window which broke.

I'm trying to say the window broke, but apparently it means the ball broke.

You've got an issue there, but not the one you think. I won't call it an error, though many people will; that's because--according to Grammar Bootcamp, which I'm currently watching--Microsoft Word's grammar checker is so ubiquitous that many people take it as gospel.

According to Microsoft, you should have a comma before "which" but not before "that." Thus:

- The ball hit the window, which broke.
- The ball hit the window that broke.

The first version can be paraphrased this way: "The ball hit the window. Oh, by the way, the window broke."

The second version can be paraphrased this way: "The ball hit the window that broke. It didn't hit the other window; it hit the one that broke."

It's not a bad system. If you don't mind going along with Microsoft, or if it bothers you to be thought wrong by all the people who do go along with Microsoft, you can use it yourself.

I tend to use it. I'm just not as fervent about it as some.

--

But none of that has to do with dangling modifiers. And there's no way to interpret your sentence as meaning that the ball broke.

Let's make up an example of a dangling modifier:

- Shoving the shifter into second gear, the car easily made it up the steep grade.

Who shoved the shifter into second? It wasn't the car. Let's say it was me. If so, the sentence should read more like this:

- Shoving the shifter into second gear, I easily made it up the steep grade.

In the prior example, "Shoving the shifter into second gear," was dangling, because the thing it modifies--me!--was missing. It wasn't there to be modified.

 

[bilby]

I suck at something I think is called dangling modifier.

The ball hit the window which broke.

I'm trying to say the window broke, but apparently it means the ball broke.

You've got an issue there, but not the one you think. I won't call it an error, though many people will; that's because--according to Grammar Bootcamp, which I'm currently watching--Microsoft Word's grammar checker is so ubiquitous that many people take it as gospel.

According to Microsoft, you should have a comma before "which" but not before "that." Thus:

- The ball hit the window, which broke.
- The ball hit the window that broke.

The first version can be paraphrased this way: "The ball hit the window. Oh, by the way, the window broke."

The second version can be paraphrased this way: "The ball hit the window that broke. It didn't hit the other window; it hit the one that broke."

It's not a bad system. If you don't mind going along with Microsoft, or if it bothers you to be thought wrong by all the people who do go along with Microsoft, you can use it yourself.

I tend to use it. I'm just not as fervent about it as some.

--

But none of that has to do with dangling modifiers. And there's no way to interpret your sentence as meaning that the ball broke.

Let's make up an example of a dangling modifier:

- Shoving the shifter into second gear, the car easily made it up the steep grade.

Who shoved the shifter into second? It wasn't the car. Let's say it was me. If so, the sentence should read more like this:

- Shoving the shifter into second gear, I easily made it up the steep grade.

In the prior example, "Shoving the shifter into second gear," was dangling, because the thing it modifies--me!--was missing. It wasn't there to be modified.

"The ball hit the window, and it broke" would be ambiguous though - it is uncertain whether 'it' refers to the ball, or to the window.

 

[Wiploc]

"The ball hit the window, and it broke" would be ambiguous though - it is uncertain whether 'it' refers to the ball, or to the window.

[pedant]
Oh, oh, I can hardly restrain myself!

 

[rousseau]

When people get pedantic about the incorrect usage of 'less' when the correct word is 'fewer', even though the word less is being used because it has fewer phonemes and can easily be understood given context. Sometimes instinct, sub-conscious usage, and plain language leads to better communication than more cogent pedantry.

Other than that.. I'm good.

[pedant]
I don't think "cogent" means what you think it means.
[this is where I'd put the /pedant bit, if I knew how to turn it off]

Yea, I thought about that.. I think being cogent is exactly what I'm going for. Maybe it'd work if I removed the words 'more cogent'.

'plain language leads to better communication than people preaching from pedant's corner'

 

[fast]

It's about the phonemes and syllables man.

I'd take the drunk down the street who asks me 'if ur home' over the person who prides themselves on the complexity of their language, when it takes more effort.

While I am the first to declare that laziness is a virtue, I cannot but disagree; Complex language done correctly requires less effort to comprehend than the simplified utterances of the poorly educated. More signal means more redundancy, and leads to fewer errors in comprehension and as a result less effort in order to capture the meaning being conveyed.

It's like the ICAO/NATO phonetic alphabet; The use of more phonemes and syllables reduces the possibility of error. 'N' sounds much the same as 'M', but nobody confuses 'November' for 'Mike'.

Oscar Kilo?

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"

May no two words have more than a single meaning. Language is so plagued with ambiguity, we'd fail to communicate if that was taken care of.

 

[Wiploc]

When people get pedantic about the incorrect usage of 'less' when the correct word is 'fewer', even though the word less is being used because it has fewer phonemes and can easily be understood given context. Sometimes instinct, sub-conscious usage, and plain language leads to better communication than more cogent pedantry.

Other than that.. I'm good.

[pedant]
I don't think "cogent" means what you think it means.
[this is where I'd put the /pedant bit, if I knew how to turn it off]

Yea, I thought about that.. I think being cogent is exactly what I'm going for. Maybe it'd work if I removed the words 'more cogent'.

'plain language leads to better communication than people preaching from pedant's corner'

I'm afraid I'm still on Inigo's side.

 

[4321lynx]

I suck at something I think is called dangling modifier.

The ball hit the window which broke.

I'm trying to say the window broke, but apparently it means the ball broke.

You've got an issue there, but not the one you think. I won't call it an error, though many people will; that's because--according to Grammar Bootcamp, which I'm currently watching--Microsoft Word's grammar checker is so ubiquitous that many people take it as gospel.

According to Microsoft, you should have a comma before "which" but not before "that." Thus:

- The ball hit the window, which broke.
- The ball hit the window that broke.

The first version can be paraphrased this way: "The ball hit the window. Oh, by the way, the window broke."

The second version can be paraphrased this way: "The ball hit the window that broke. It didn't hit the other window; it hit the one that broke."

It's not a bad system. If you don't mind going along with Microsoft, or if it bothers you to be thought wrong by all the people who do go along with Microsoft, you can use it yourself.

I tend to use it. I'm just not as fervent about it as some.

--

But none of that has to do with dangling modifiers. And there's no way to interpret your sentence as meaning that the ball broke.

Let's make up an example of a dangling modifier:

- Shoving the shifter into second gear, the car easily made it up the steep grade.

Who shoved the shifter into second? It wasn't the car. Let's say it was me. If so, the sentence should read more like this:

- Shoving the shifter into second gear, I easily made it up the steep grade.

In the prior example, "Shoving the shifter into second gear," was dangling, because the thing it modifies--me!--was missing. It wasn't there to be modified.

"The ball hit the window, and it broke" would be ambiguous though - it is uncertain whether 'it' refers to the ball, or to the window.

The ball hit the window (or this, or that window) and broke it. Does that fix the sentence and give the intended meaning?

 

[Copernicus]

I suck at something I think is called dangling modifier.

The ball hit the window which broke.

I'm trying to say the window broke, but apparently it means the ball broke.

As Wiploc said, this is not a case of a dangling modifier (or dangling participle). The modifying clause "which broke" is a relative clause, but your sentence suggests two possible meanings, which I will paraphrase as:

1) The ball hit the window and that window broke. (non-restrictive relative pronoun meaning of "which")
2) The ball hit the particular window that broke. (restrictive relative pronoun meaning "which")

A restrictive relative clause narrows the reference of the noun it modifies in a context. So the restrictive sense implies that there were other windows that were not broken, and the ball hits the one that was broken. A non-restrictive (or appositive) relative clause merely adds information about the noun that it modifies. So the non-restrictive sense does not imply that there were other windows. It merely adds the information that the window broke.

There is an English spelling convention that requires you to set non-restrictive relatives (and other types of appositive modification) off with commas. So you should have written "The ball hit the window, which broke", if that were your intended meaning. However, there is something else going on here. Prescriptive grammarians quite incorrectly insist that "which" can only be a non-restrictive relative pronoun in English. That is just false, but it is in virtually every style guide that you will come across. Hence, some grammar checking programs will ding you for the above sentence when there is no comma. Wiploc mentioned just the Microsoft grammar checker, but most others will score the usage is ungrammatical. This convention is confusing, because "which" is commonly used as a restrictive relative pronoun in English, and there is nothing at all wrong with your sentence grammatically, if you wanted to use "which" in that way. You just have to learn to put up with being scolded occasionally by grammar nazis.

Now there is another relative pronoun in English: "that". The pronoun "that" can be used only as a restrictive relative pronoun English, not as a non-restrictive. Hence, one should never separate it from the noun it modifies with a comma. All native speakers of English know intuitively that "that" is always restrictive, but people sometimes incorrectly insert that comma there anyway. I presume the reason is that they just have a poor grasp of comma usage conventions. Anyway, prescriptive grammarians have spread the false information that English requires you to use "that" whenever you intend a restrictive relative meaning. In fact, nobody holds to that rule in normal English usage, not even the most fanatical grammar nazi. But they do enjoy scolding people.

Fun fact: prescriptive grammarians who insist on not ending clauses with prepositions--another stupid stylistic rule they invented out of whole cloth--screw themselves up when they insist that "which" cannot be a restrictive relative pronoun. Consider the following perfectly grammatical sentence in English:

"The house in which I live has two stories."

The relative clause "in which I live" is unambiguously a restrictive relative clause, although there are situations where it could be used in a non-restrictive sense. However, if you try to get rid of the "which" by replacing it with "that", you have to end the relative clause in a preposition:

"The house that I live in has two stories." NOT: "The house in that I live has two stories."

So the moral here is that it is perfectly correct to write "The ball hit the window which broke", if you intend "which" to be restrictive. Otherwise, one should write "The ball hit the window, which broke."

 

[fast]

And I thought my English was good. I feel like I need to go back to class. It's amazing how more I become familiar with something, the more there is to learn.

 

[Underseer]

The use of plural forms as though they were singular.

"The disease is caused by a bacteria". "Radio is his favourite media".

Ha! I'm guilty of that one.

Thanks for making me look that up.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, I thought about that.. I think being cogent is exactly what I'm going for. Maybe it'd work if I removed the words 'more cogent'.

'plain language leads to better communication than people preaching from pedant's corner'

I'm afraid I'm still on Inigo's side.

My name is Inigo Montoya. You kill my language. Prepare to die!

 

[Rhea]

This thread is both informative and hilarious.

 

[bilby]

"We used an empty can of beans as a scoop"

No, you didn't. You used an empty bean can. If it's empty, it cannot possibly still be a can of beans. It was only a can of beans when it had beans in it. Now its a can. It's a bean can; It's an empty can. But it is not, and cannot be, and empty can of beans.

 

[Copernicus]

"We used an empty can of beans as a scoop"

No, you didn't. You used an empty bean can. If it's empty, it cannot possibly still be a can of beans. It was only a can of beans when it had beans in it. Now its a can. It's a bean can; It's an empty can. But it is not, and cannot be, and empty can of beans.

Strikes me as a man of straw.

 

[Hermit]

"We used an empty can of beans as a scoop"

No, you didn't. You used an empty bean can. If it's empty, it cannot possibly still be a can of beans. It was only a can of beans when it had beans in it. Now its a can. It's a bean can; It's an empty can. But it is not, and cannot be, and empty can of beans.

If it's empty, it cannot possibly still be a bean can. Now it's just a scoop can, or an empty can that used to contain beans.

Pedantry can be taken too far.

 

[bilby]

"We used an empty can of beans as a scoop"

No, you didn't. You used an empty bean can. If it's empty, it cannot possibly still be a can of beans. It was only a can of beans when it had beans in it. Now its a can. It's a bean can; It's an empty can. But it is not, and cannot be, and empty can of beans.

If it's empty, it cannot possibly still be a bean can. Now it's just a scoop can, or an empty can that used to contain beans.

Pedantry can be taken too far.

Indeed it can, as you just demonstrated.

It is always a bean can, as it was designed and constructed to contain beans. It is not a can of beans unless it contains beans right now.