RAF's Grammar Rant Wiki (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Bob McLaughlin

You guys have to read this book if you haven't already:

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Originally Posted by Joseph DeMartino /forum/thread/293618/raf-s-grammar-rant-wiki/30#post_3615150

 

[drobbins]

You guys have actually read books on grammar and punctuation? Wow! I guess if you write for a living I could see that. How about a tradesman or a profession where writing is not needed? I remember when I was 26. My wife,(then girlfriend) was riding with me when I got pulled over for driving a little slow. The cop started the usual drunk test - say the alphabet. I got about half way through it and lost my place. I had been out of school for 8 years and I bet I hadn't recited the alphabet in 15 - 20 years. I never needed it. Well that lead to me walking the line while my wife (a preschool teacher) was trying hard not to laugh. I still say that writing needs to evolve: a lot = alot, web site = website, etc...

 

[Citizen87645]

I think those of us who have read those books would encourage anyone, regardless of his vocation, to read them.

Having been through a rigorous "grammar for journalists" course, I have noticed there seems to be one type of person who either "gets" spelling and grammar and another who, no matter how it's explained, never quite grasps it. It's an interesting phenomenon and I was not entirely surprised when I saw a personality study ask about one's ability with spelling and grammar as an indicator of personality type.

 

[Sam Posten]

I ALMOST posted a link to Penny Arcade's Mr. Period strip yesterday. It's funny but verrry anti-PC. Google it if that does not offend...

 

[Sam Posten]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

Administrator Robert Fowkes has written an HTF wiki on improper grammar usage.

A couple of points intrigue me. The first is his use of a capital "I" when describing the internet.

OK, don't get mad at me Doc but.... It's a wiki right? So I took Mike's suggestion and I fixed it for you! =) Voila, Internet -> internet

heheh

 

[nolesrule]

And that's what leads to wiki pingponging. I changed it back because it was correct to begin with.

"Internet" is a proper noun when referring to the Internet and not just a generic computer network.

IBM's TCP/IP Tutorial and Technical Overview (ISBN 0-7384-2165-0) from 1989

The words internetwork and internet is [sic] simply a contraction of the phrase interconnected network. However, when written with a capital "I", the Internet refers to the worldwide set of interconnected networks. Hence, the Internet is an internet, but the reverse does not apply. The Internet is sometimes called the connected Internet.

According to Wikipedia's article on the naming convention, different media sources have differing opinions on the convention, however the Internet standards community uses capitalization. The majority of North American major media outlets and use capitalization.

And while it may someday lose its capitalization and status as a proper noun through common usage, that has not occurred just yet.

 

[Will_B]

RAF noted, "...when Steve Jobs rolled out the latest iPod and proclaimed it 'the funnest iPod yet!' I began to think that his anti-corporate jeans (and genes) might be going to his head."

I'd noticed Jobs' use of "funnest" as well, and considered it a triumph! "Most fun" is a laborious, indirect way of conveying the meaning which Jobs conveyed more directly with "funnest".

If "happy" can become "happiest", and "sad" can be "saddest", then "fun" can become "funnest".

As RAF noted, it forces "fun" from being a noun into being an adjective, but it's probably been a hundred years since "fun" was a noun. "Buy some fun... fun sold here... how many ounces of fun would you like to buy today?" doesn't make any sense to a contemporary person. It's an adjective. The noun version needs to be moved down in dictionary ranking, and the adjective version needs to be moved up to position one.

MY PET PEEVE is when people spell "lightning" as "lightening". Unfortunately for me, both are correct. But to me, "lightning" sounds like the fierce electrical discharge from clouds, and "lightening" sounds like some sort of flour or shortening used in a recipe, or maybe something to lighten the color of paint.

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by Will_B ">[/url]

RAF noted, "...when Steve Jobs rolled out the latest iPod and proclaimed it 'the funnest iPod yet!' I began to think that his anti-corporate jeans (and genes) might be going to his head."

I'd noticed Jobs' use of "funnest" as well, and considered it a triumph! "Most fun" is a laborious, indirect way of conveying the meaning which Jobs conveyed more directly with "funnest".

If "happy" can become "happiest", and "sad" can be "saddest", then "fun" can become "funnest".

As RAF noted, it forces "fun" from being a noun into being an adjective, but it's probably been a hundred years since "fun" was a noun. "Buy some fun... fun sold here... how many ounces of fun would you like to buy today?" doesn't make any sense to a contemporary person. It's an adjective. The noun version needs to be moved down in dictionary ranking, and the adjective version needs to be moved up to position one.

(.....)
[/QUOTE]As a non English speaking person (first language, that is), I must hesitantly disagree.

If you say "it's funny", there's no doubt that [i]funny[/i] is an adjective and the superlative would be "funniest", much like sad - saddest.

However, if you say "it's fun", you basically say something like "it's a heap of fun" and [i]fun[/i] is still a noun. No possibility to translate it to "most fun" or "funnest" in a semantically proper way.
(Of course you could say "it's mostly fun" - but that doesn't contradict the argument.)

And I don't even see why Jobs didn't say "the funniest iPod yet".

All IMHO, of course!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Will_B

But you'll have to excuse me, because it's the weekend. I've had a busy week, and I want to go out and have some fun.

/forum/thread/293618/raf-s-grammar-rant-wiki/30#post_3615843

 

[Edwin-S]

In a society that has legitimized the use of a meaningless word like "ginormous", arguing about Jobs's use of the word "funnest" seems pointless. The flexibility and adaptability of English is what makes it so dynamic and yet hard to understand for many people. Words and phrases that we take for granted today were probably being debated -much as people are doing here now- as abominations 100 years ago.

 

[RobertR]

How many here have read Mark Twain's essay on reforming English spelling? I know it'll never be implemented, but it seems pretty logical to me:

http://www.mantex.co.uk/samples/spell.htm

The best thing I can say about it is that I have little trouble understanding the last two paragraphs.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

This week's pet peeve: "Advise" (verb) being used in place of "Advice" (noun.) Different words.

Joe

 

[Mike Frezon]

Strunk's first edition of Elements of Style (1918) actually had an entire section on spelling: a list of words commonly misspelled. That was removed by White in the first joint publication because it contained some archaic rules...such as spelling today, tonight and tomorrow (but not together) with a hyphen (to-day, etc.). Things do change.

George Bernard Shaw (I learned this as a young lad) once proposed some spelling changes of his own. He once spelled:

[COLOR= rgb(51, 102, 255)]ghoti[/COLOR] = fish

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]enough

women

nation
[/COLOR]

 

[Sam Posten]

Originally Posted by nolesrule

And that's what leads to wiki pingponging. I changed it back because it was correct to begin with.

Heheh I don't know whether to say 'aw you're no fun' or to clap because you 'get' the wiki idea =)

 

[Sam Posten]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Alfonso_M]

Hey guys, thanks for pointing out those books, if any one needs grammar lessons, I know it's me

 

[nolesrule]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten /forum/thread/293618/raf-s-grammar-rant-wiki/30#post_3616358

 

[Steve Y]

As long as we're on the subject of books about grammar and proper word connotation, I highly recommend Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words (Bill Bryson). It's a fun read even if none of its information is surprising to you. Bryson's Dictionary for Writers and Editors (the "follow-up", you might say) is not nearly as enjoyable, because it contains mostly proper nouns for journalists.

My own pet peeve is the rampant "it's / its" confusion, which has poisoned many (otherwise talented) writers. I just can't seem to wrap my head around why this is so confusing for so many people.

Steve

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

One thing that many people, myself included, finding confusing is the use of the trailing "s". In the absense of anything more specific, I've always added the trailing "s" to possessives of singular proper nouns (ex. John Stevens's secretary had been out to lunch for six hours) but omitted the trailing "s" from plural possessives (ex. The executives' secretary had been out to lunch for six hours).