Grammatical Errors You Can't Stand

[NotWise]

While it's true that it is an ambiguous sentence, if you mean your love for Susie is not as great as Billy's, I feel (my own opinion) that while technically grammatically correct, it's awkward. For clarity: Billy loves Susie more than I do (or 'ever could' etc.).

My grammatical training ain't great. The last 'grammar' course I had was Semantics, where the basic rule seemed to be 'if it isn't ambiguous then it's probably okay.' Being ambiguous is clearly a problem.

Context might clarify the sentence. I can't.

 

[latecomer91364]

My grammatical training ain't great. The last 'grammar' course I had was Semantics, where the basic rule seemed to be 'if it isn't ambiguous then it's probably okay.' Being ambiguous is clearly a problem.

Context might clarify the sentence. I can't.

Theirs know weigh two clarify it. Sum peoples just dont speak good (sic).

 

[Blind_Justice]

Punctuation, dropped words and run-on sentences frustrate me more than grammar. Plus, as a non-native speaker, I shouldn't judge too harshly. But things like "could of happened" in place of "could have happened" drive me crazy.

Also, if someone tries to sound sophisticated by appropriating bits from other languages, for the love of tap-dancing Christ, spell it right.

It's "per se", not "per say"
"it piqued my interest" instead of "picked my interest"
"Wiener" (sausauge from Wien/Vienna) instead of "Weiner"

 

[NotWise]

But things like "could of happened" in place of "could have happened" drive me crazy.

That's vernacular, maybe better written as 'could've,' or 'coulda.' I'm not sure, but my spellchecker (LibreOffice) might accept coulda,' It accepts 'kinda.' In dialog a lot of variations should be acceptable.

Also, if someone tries to sound sophisticated by appropriating bits from other languages, for the love of tap-dancing Christ, spell it right.

It's "per se", not "per say"
"it piqued my interest" instead of "picked my interest"
"Wiener" (sausauge from Wien/Vienna) instead of "Weiner"

Okay, I'll give you those, but--at least in the US--it's 'sausage' not 'sausauge.' I find it difficult, when including bits from other languages, to get context and usage right. The 'other language' I normally use is Spanish and there are so many different local usages of Spanish that purists would no doubt cringe at my best efforts.

 

[Blind_Justice]

That's vernacular, maybe better written as 'could've,' or 'coulda.' I'm not sure, but my spellchecker (LibreOffice) might accept coulda,' It accepts 'kinda.' In dialog a lot of variations should be acceptable.

Dialogue is one thing, written exchanges like social media posts another. I'm certain this particular thing evolved from people using "could've" in speech and not having a clue how it's written.

And the sausage thing? Typo on my part. Elephant and glass houses, I get it.

 

[TamLin01]

It drives me nuts when people write "alright" instead of "all right."

Some folks will insist that this is not actually an error at all. Those people make me want to chew through elevator cables.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It drives me nuts when people write "alright" instead of "all right."

Some folks will insist that this is not actually an error at all. Those people make me want to chew through elevator cables.

Except it's not necessarily wrong:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright. (Note usage as far back as 1865)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/all-right-or-alright


Formal vs vernacular, maybe? OK vs okay.

I very possibly use both myself - the fact that I don't know what I would actually write means it's very low on my radar of "dislikes", or I rarely use it.

Except as a song lyric: baby it's all right now...

 

[oggbashan]

Dialogue and exposition

When writing dialogue, anything goes. Word's recommendations on grammar are useless and very unhelpful for dialogue. Many parts of dialogue will be fragments. Verbs might be missing. There can be non-standard spellings. Whatever suits the character is acceptable. The punctuation of dialogue and the identification of the person speaking are important but what is said can be ungrammatical.

But when writing a story grammar and spelling should NORMALLY follow the standard rules - Chicago Manual for US English; Oxford recommendations for British English.

If you want to break the rules for a reason, you should know what rule you are breaking and what effect you want to produce by breaking that rule. "To boldly go" offended purists but it was and is an effective statement more appropriate than the grammatically correct "Boldly to go" or "To go boldly".

But the above is just my personal opinion. As I stated in a post above some things irritate me slightly. There's very little I can't stand.

 

[latecomer91364]

Breaking Rules

A slight detour, and based solely on my own opinion.

This isn't about mistakes, but about wanting to make mistakes on purpose.

I like to end sentences with prepositions: 'Who are you speaking to?', rather than 'To whom (Aagh! - see below) are you speaking?' People simply don't speak that way in common usage.

I just don't want to use 'whom', except in maybe 5% of applicable examples, like "For Whom the Bells Toll" (being a title, naturally one wouldn't presume to reconstruct it). I don't really have a good reason, I just don't like it.

 

[SimonDoom]

A slight detour, and based solely on my own opinion.

This isn't about mistakes, but about wanting to make mistakes on purpose.

I like to end sentences with prepositions: 'Who are you speaking to?', rather than 'To whom (Aagh! - see below) are you speaking?' People simply don't speak that way in common usage.

I just don't want to use 'whom', except in maybe 5% of applicable examples, like "For Whom the Bells Toll" (being a title, naturally one wouldn't presume to reconstruct it). I don't really have a good reason, I just don't like it.

The example you gave likely would appear in a quote. There's nothing wrong with rendering dialog in a grammatically incorrect way if that's the way the character speaks, and in the case of who/whom most people would say "who", not "whom."

There's nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. Modern usage and style guides make this very clear. Outside of dialogue, however, I think it would wrong to use "who" where "whom" is appropriate.

 

[sr71plt]

When writing dialogue, anything goes. Word's recommendations on grammar are useless and very unhelpful for dialogue. Many parts of dialogue will be fragments. Verbs might be missing. There can be non-standard spellings. Whatever suits the character is acceptable. The punctuation of dialogue and the identification of the person speaking are important but what is said can be ungrammatical.

That's why I don't recommend computer grammar programs for writing fiction for anyone who isn't well versed enough themselves to know when the advice is applicable and when it's not. Fiction is very loose in styling. Computer logic can't fully grasp the legitimate looseness of fiction and thus can lead you astray when writing fiction if you don't know how to work with it. I don't use any grammar check program. I use spellcheck, but only to highlight what I should look at again. Sometimes it points to something that's wrong and I wouldn't catch that; sometimes that form of the word is just beyond the spellcheck's program. I also use spellcheck in conjunction with the most current Webster's (for American style).

 

[jaF0]

One that always bugs me (and I'm sure has been mentioned on this and other boards many time) and looks wrong either way.

When you're talking about a corporation's assets, why aren't you talking about it's assets?

The answer doesn't matter. I've seen it a thousand times and it still doesn't sit well with me.

 

[sr71plt]

One that always bugs me (and I'm sure has been mentioned on this and other boards many time) and looks wrong either way.

When you're talking about a corporation's assets, why aren't you talking about it's assets?

The answer doesn't matter. I've seen it a thousand times and it still doesn't sit well with me.

I can't say I understand what you're objecting to, but it's (yes, "it's") sort of amusing that you've fallen into what some others have posted they can't stand.

 

[SimonDoom]

One that always bugs me (and I'm sure has been mentioned on this and other boards many time) and looks wrong either way.

When you're talking about a corporation's assets, why aren't you talking about it's assets?

The answer doesn't matter. I've seen it a thousand times and it still doesn't sit well with me.

Because it's a pronoun and that's how we deal with the possessive form of pronouns: hers, his, ours. No apostrophe.

It's a convention.

The one good argument for it is that the absence of an apostrophe distinguishes its from the contraction it's (it is). So it does make things a bit clearer.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, yes, now I see what she was asking about. And you've answered that.

 

[jaF0]

Because it's a pronoun and that's how we deal with the possessive form of pronouns: hers, his, ours. No apostrophe.

It's a convention.

Despite the misguided US Supreme Court decision, a corporation is not a person. His, hers. ours, theirs does not apply to a corporation's possessions. If there's to be an apostrophe in 'corporation's possessions', there should be in it's when referring to the corporation's possessions.

 

[oggbashan]

Despite the misguided US Supreme Court decision, a corporation is not a person. His, hers. ours, theirs does not apply to a corporation's possessions. If there's to be an apostrophe in 'corporation's possessions', there should be in it's when referring to the corporation's possessions.

No it shouldn't. It's only means "it is".

 

[sr71plt]

Despite the misguided US Supreme Court decision, a corporation is not a person. His, hers. ours, theirs does not apply to a corporation's possessions. If there's to be an apostrophe in 'corporation's possessions', there should be in it's when referring to the corporation's possessions.

Well, no, and it has nothing to do with gender or anything else the Supreme Court is involved in. English isn't a fully logical language. Practice has gone with the less confusing in this instance. That's just the way it is. If you use your logic in your rendering, you will confuse the reader.

 

[SimonDoom]

Despite the misguided US Supreme Court decision, a corporation is not a person. His, hers. ours, theirs does not apply to a corporation's possessions. If there's to be an apostrophe in 'corporation's possessions', there should be in it's when referring to the corporation's possessions.

The use of the apostrophe with a possessive noun does not correlate with the use of an apostrophe with a possessive pronoun. My point was that this is true regardless of whether one is referring to a thing or a person.

Mary's possessions, or Her possessions, or The possessions are hers.

Jake's possessions, or His possessions, or The possessions are his.

The group's possessions, or Their possession, or The possessions are theirs.

No apostrophe with possessive pronouns.

Makes no difference whether it refers to a person, a thing, or a collective. The absence of an apostrophe in "its" is a convention, but it is logical in the sense that it is consistent with the way other possessive pronouns are put together.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Despite the misguided US Supreme Court decision, a corporation is not a person. His, hers. ours, theirs does not apply to a corporation's possessions. If there's to be an apostrophe in 'corporation's possessions', there should be in it's when referring to the corporation's possessions.

Interesting. In Oz a corporation is as much a legal entity as a person, and if a government is involved, it bears the legal entity of the "crown" ie, Her Maj.