[besson3c]

For those who, like me, make an effort to sound reasonably intelligent and therefore care, here is a quick grammar lesson on mistakes I've seen been made quite frequently around here as of late:


1) Apostrophes are NOT used for making words plural. Apostrophes are used for combining two words together, or for indicating belonging. In a recent thread, somebody wrote "Nazi's" instead of "Nazis"... Nazi's = Nazi is. The exception here is "it's" and "its". "Its" means "the thing belonging to it", "it's" means "it is".

2) Loose/lose - Loose = the opposite of tight, lose = the opposite of win

3) Two/too/to - look this up if you aren't sure

4) They're/their/there - ditto.

5) You're/your - see #1


No offense, but I have a *really* hard time being impressed by a post where the poster consistently makes these sorts of errors (either within a single post, or within a series of posts).

If you care about sounding intelligent, take care of business.

[besson3c]

Request: please do not start nitpicking my grammar now, this sort of deflection is counter-productive. I realize that I'm not perfect. I realize that we all make mistakes. This thread is addressed to people who care and were simply unaware of the correct usage of these basic grammar rules.

[turtle777]

-t

[Spliffdaddy]

We're from the old school, besson3c.

Today they don't teach grammar or sentence structure.

They had to find time to teach 'global warming'.

[besson3c]

Stop projecting, you hyperbolist



(Just wanted to say that, for no reason in particular)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

We're from the old school, besson3c.

Today they don't teach grammar or sentence structure.

They had to find time to teach 'global warming'.

Let's give this thread at least a few more posts before we allow it to degrade into the status quo, what do you think?



(P.S. if you can't restrain yourself and later choose to attack global warming after my thread has degraded, please explain why you know better than so many scientists who have devoted their life to this sort of stuff)

(P.P.S. your gut feelings do not count)

[subego]

Advanced Class:

Your curiosity is "piqued" not "peaked"
Two things joined in a way you cannot see are "seamless" not "seemless"

The red line that would have appeared under "seemless" when you typed it might have clued you in. Since it didn't you obviously have your spell check off. Go fix that now. If you are using Safari it's in the Edit menu under Spelling > Check Spelling as You Type.

[Spliffdaddy]

Furthermore, it's 'heatsink' - not "heatsync".

[Dr. Wahnsinn]

Excellent post!

Guitar chord, not cord.
Electrical cord, not chord.

How about using memory "stick" only when referring to the trademarked Sony product and not just DIMMs in general.

Oh and, colour, not color. Grey, not gray… You get the idea. (This part was just for fun, but I'm serious about the other ones.)

Hey, remember all that talk about Mac users being smarter than PC users?

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

lock please

[baw]

Please explain effect and affect. I'm always confusing them.

[Buckaroo]

I keep goofing on the your/you're and the apostrophe thing.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by baw

Please explain effect and affect. I'm always confusing them.

As nouns, only ‘effect’ is in common use (outside psychology, or doing something “in affect”, i.e., ‘in the heat of the moment’, so to speak)—“an effect on global warming” (just to keep with the trend of the thread ).

As verbs, ‘affect’ and ‘effect’ can be somewhat similar in their basic meaning, but are looking at the thing from slightly different perspectives. If you give good advice to a friend, whose situation (say, global warming, for instance) changes favourably because of it, you’ve affected her in a good way—she has been affected by you. The change in her situation, however, has been effected by you.

To affect means to have some sort of effect on something or someone.
To effect means to bring something about, to make something happen.

They can be a bit hard to tell apart, that’s true.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dr. Wahnsinn

Guitar chord, not cord.

Yeah, I use guitar chords (sic) all the time to hook up my guitar to my amp

Guitar chord and guitar cord BOTH exist !!!

-t

[cybergoober]

Get over it. If you knew what someone meant, then they communicated effectively.

Also keep in mind, especially on the Internet, that English isn't everyone's first language.

[wataru]

It's "hear, hear" not "here, here."

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by cybergoober

Get over it. If you knew what someone meant, then they communicated effectively.

No, I won't.

This is a thread on lecturing people in English grammar. I disagree with that kind of thread anyways (see my first post), but ok.

But should somebody feel he has to contribute in lecturing us folk on grammar, he batter have his sh!t straight. Dr. Wahnsinn didn't.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Guitar chord and guitar cord BOTH exist !!!

No they don't. Those long snake-like thingies used for connecting your guitar to your amp are called "cables".

[turtle777]

Ahh, thanks.

Maybe, while you're at it, you could correctinate all the Google links and references. Even Amazon doesn't have it straight.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

lock please

It's okay.. you'll pull through this... you'll persevere!

I suggest taking some of the edge off with a tasty beverage.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by cybergoober

Get over it. If you knew what someone meant, then they communicated effectively.

Also keep in mind, especially on the Internet, that English isn't everyone's first language.

I usually don't have a difficulty recognizing whether or not English is somebody's first language depending on the sorts of references they use and such.

The problem I'm addressing isn't simply with conveying meaning, but with sounding intelligent doing so. Like I said, if you don't care, there are other threads you can participate in. If this applies to you, I hope that the take home message simply is that if you spew all sorts of dumb grammar mistakes in your writing consistently without self-correcting yourself, I'll generally think you are either a dumbass or a kid... just FWIW.

[Gankdawg]

This thread should be Sticky.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by cybergoober

Get over it. If you knew what someone meant, then they communicated effectively.

Also keep in mind, especially on the Internet, that English isn't everyone's first language.

If English is not their first language, then I'm sure they would appreciate being corrected so they can improve their English language skills.

If it is their first language, it doesn't matter if you can guess what they meant. The point is if people can't make a simple effort to communicate correctly, why would I assume that they made any effort in proper thought or research into the content of the post itself?

Poor grammar is a symptom of laziness. It's not the poor grammar itself, it's the poor effort put into communicating. Someone who really has a point to get across, would appreciate the correction. Someone who says "you know what I meant, get over it, grammar nazi", is basically saying "I'll continue to be lazy, and if you don't understand, that's your fault". Well no, it's not my fault. Sorry, but I really don't want to waste my time reading posts from someone who is lazy, and refuses to take responsibility for their own actions (or in this case, inactions).

Basically, it all comes down to "If you have something to say, say it well."

[besson3c]

Hayesk: you said it!


I've also thought about how to interpret their level of intelligence with this sort of repeated misuse/lazyness too. Every smart person I know in real life makes an effort to speak/write articulately and to represent themselves and their viewpoints as intelligently and accurately as they can.

If they didn't, it would be sort of like showing up somewhere where you want to make a good impression on others not having showered for a few days wearing tattered, oil stained clothes. To me, just like tending to your physical appearance, tending to ensure proper grammar is taking pride in what you say and how you say it.

Now, I'm not suggesting that people will be putting what you say under a microscope and becoming nit picky about little things, but mistaking "too/to" or "they're/their/there" are things you should have learned and mastered in early grade school. This is extremely basic.

[Eug]

1) Apostrophes are NOT used for making words plural. Apostrophes are used for combining two words together, or for indicating belonging. In a recent thread, somebody wrote "Nazi's" instead of "Nazis"... Nazi's = Nazi is. The exception here is "it's" and "its". "Its" means "the thing belonging to it", "it's" means "it is".

No offense, but I have a *really* hard time being impressed by a post where the poster consistently makes these sorts of errors (either within a single post, or within a series of posts).

If you care about sounding intelligent, take care of business.

Contrary to popular myth, an apostrophe can be use to indicate plurals, at least in certain circumstances. From my apostrophe thread:

From the guys who publish the Oxford Dictionaries:

An apostrophe is used in plurals in the following very special cases:

1. in the plurals of single letters:
There are only three s's in `Christmases'.
Mind your p's and q's.
(Even here, the capital letter would not need the apostrophe.)

2. in the plurals of abbreviations:
We have several pg's [paying guests].
We have received four cheques and two IOU's.
(But IOUs is common and accepted, and the usual plural of CD is CDs).
Most symbols for units such as lb (pounds) and cm (centimetres) do not strictly have plural forms.

3. in the plurals of numerals:
This house was built in the 1930's.
(But 1930s is preferable).

4. As an alternative spelling, for clarity, of the plurals of a very few short words:
We went to several society do's last year.
While out with his third wife he met both of his ex's.
I've had yes's for coffee from four people.
But in each case, dos, exes, yesses would be acceptable. The usual plural of no is noes.

[besson3c]

Thanks Eug, this is useful info!

[ghporter]

Clarity is the key to communication. If two people are using a particular bit of terminology to refer to the same thing, then they will communicate clearly. However, if I say the verb "sync" and someone thinks I meant "sink", they will form the wrong picture of my meaning and while meaning has been transferred, the intended meaning has NOT. When conversing, homonyms and homophones are irrelevant, and the speaker has the opportunity to use the feedback the listener provides as cues for whether or not to amplify, illustrate, clarify or otherwise restate as needed to ensure the listener receives the intended message.

When writing one cannot capitalize on feedback from the reader, so one MUST use standardized, conventional spellings, punctuations, grammatical structures and so on. These, being standardized, provide more information to the reader. The reader can then use this additional information to interpret the text and draw a more complete conclusion from it. If the writer is good, the combination of text and structure gets the intended message across. If not, then it's a crap shoot.

Having been a tech writer and writer of both local and exportable training materials, I have had my nose rubbed in the awfulness that is current English usage. And having made my living by communicating, both verbally and in writing, I have a deep drive to be understood. Apparently the tissue paper-thin understanding that is possible from some people's writing is enough for them, but not for me!

[CharlesS]

How about this one: MAC vs. Mac

MAC = your network card's unique address
Mac = a computer sold by Apple

And... an illustration

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

How about this one: MAC vs. Mac

MAC = your network card's unique address
Mac = a computer sold by Apple

And... an illustration

When will Apple come out with "Maaco Sex".

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

How about this one: MAC vs. Mac

MAC = your network card's unique address
Mac = a computer sold by Apple

Technically, this is NOT a grammar issue

-t

[baw]

This thread should be a sticky.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by baw

This thread should be a sticky.

two people want this to be a sticky

let it be a sticky!

[Art Vandelay]

Don't forget who's/whose.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

1) Apostrophes are NOT used for making words plural. Apostrophes are used for combining two words together, or for indicating belonging. In a recent thread, somebody wrote "Nazi's" instead of "Nazis"... Nazi's = Nazi is. The exception here is "it's" and "its". "Its" means "the thing belonging to it", "it's" means "it is".

[SNIP]

5) You're/your - see #1

Rule No. 1 is a little unclear here. It says that apostrophes should be used to indicate contractions or possession. One of these is a possessive and the other is a contraction — so either one could have an apostrophe.

[forkies]

though repeated or common grammar mistakes piss me off, i'm not going to judge that person or his/her arguments based on it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug

Contrary to popular myth, an apostrophe can be use to indicate plurals, at least in certain circumstances. From my apostrophe thread:

From the guys who publish the Oxford Dictionaries:

An apostrophe is used in plurals in the following very special cases:

1. in the plurals of single letters:
There are only three s's in `Christmases'.
Mind your p's and q's.
(Even here, the capital letter would not need the apostrophe.)

2. in the plurals of abbreviations:
We have several pg's [paying guests].
We have received four cheques and two IOU's.
(But IOUs is common and accepted, and the usual plural of CD is CDs).
Most symbols for units such as lb (pounds) and cm (centimetres) do not strictly have plural forms.

3. in the plurals of numerals:
This house was built in the 1930's.
(But 1930s is preferable).

4. As an alternative spelling, for clarity, of the plurals of a very few short words:
We went to several society do's last year.
While out with his third wife he met both of his ex's.
I've had yes's for coffee from four people.
But in each case, dos, exes, yesses would be acceptable. The usual plural of no is noes.

Note that for most of those, they say not using an apostrophe is preferable.

[KeriVit]

Originally Posted by Gankdawg

This thread should be Sticky.

I agree. It is good information, but it seems we have a grammar thread monthly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

two people want this to be a sticky

let it be a sticky!

I thought you wanted the thread locked?

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I thought you wanted the thread locked?

Both

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

Both

Would you like fries with that? How else can we serve thee?

[Chuckit]

I don't know how many people have seen it, but here is a really good site on the sort of things people have been talking about in this thread:

Common Errors in English

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The exception here is "it's" and "its". "Its" means "the thing belonging to it", "it's" means "it is".

That's not an exception; think about him/his and her/hers... no apostrophe there either.

His == owned by him.
Its == owned by it.

They are just following a different pattern.


Amorya

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Note that for most of those, they say not using an apostrophe is preferable.

True. I'm just saying that there are some instances where usage of an apostrophe to indicate possession isn't necessarily wrong.

It's sort of like the usage of "Chuckit and me". There are many instances where using "Chuckit and me" is wrong, but it doesn't mean that it's always wrong.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Rule No. 1 is a little unclear here. It says that apostrophes should be used to indicate contractions or possession. One of these is a possessive and the other is a contraction — so either one could have an apostrophe.

The rule should say instead that apostrophes are used to form genitives, since that’s specifically what they are used for (in this context). ‘Your’ would not be included then, since it’s not a genitive.

[Oisín]

That's not an exception; think about him/his and her/hers... no apostrophe there either.

It is if you define the rule as besson3c did (as apostrophes being used to form “possessives”).

[christ]

And whilst grammar is up for discussion, you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction.

But finishing with a preposition is also hard to put up with.

[turtle777]

^^^

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by christ

And whilst grammar is up for discussion, you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction.

But finishing with a preposition is also hard to put up with.

This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by christ

And whilst grammar is up for discussion, you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction.

But finishing with a preposition is also hard to put up with.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I thought you wanted the thread locked?

He's a nine year old who's excited to try out all of the internet phrases that he's learning.