It's so freakin' simple!

Misusing words drives me up the wall. I can't stand it when I'm reading something and there's loosing instead of losing. It's also irritating when people can't use the proper homonyms, most specifically your and you're; too, two, and two; and there, their, and they're.

Is it really so hard to learn how to write in English properly? Are our schools really so horrible that they can't teach children such basic things? Even in high school there's still kids who can't tell the difference and end up using the wrong word and I know it's not due to being lazy. It's just simply ridiculous.

Someone needs to crack down on this kind of stuff. Where's the Grammar Gestapo when you need it?

So how do you feel about this? Do you have any other similar pet peeves? Is there anything that can be done about it or will those of us who can actually spell have to suffer for all eternity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

Someone needs to crack down on this kind of stuff. Where's the Grammar Gestapo when you need it?

---

Everyone got mad at them. xD

Your got that write, Ouch. I hate it two.

How weird. I was just having a conversation about this in #eoff.

Team names. Are singular. One team. Not two. Not 50. One. Chelsea is good. Not are. IS.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walker Texas Ranger

Chelsea is good. Not are. IS.

---

No they aren't! ...or no they isn't, using YOUR rule :p

#eoff are pretty bad to.

It isn't. The team. One thing. Isn't.

I don't no what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walker Texas Ranger

It isn't. The team. One thing. Isn't.

---

True, but I think that because so many people use the plural form for teams, the rules of grammar regarding them have changed. And before anyone says "You can't just change the rules of grammar!" go look at how they spoke in the year 1000, of course grammar and language changes. It is never static - it's updating itself with the needs of society, but go look up the Sapir-Whorf theory if you care about such things :p Anyway, whether or not it is a good change is up for debate, but there you go.

U can't just change the rules of grammer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

True, but I think that because so many people use the plural form for teams, the rules of grammar regarding them have changed. And before anyone says "You can't just change the rules of grammar!" go look at how they spoke in the year 1000, of course grammar and language changes. It is never static - it's updating itself with the needs of society, but go look up the Sapir-Whorf theory if you care about such things :p Anyway, whether or not it is a good change is up for debate, but there you go.

---

Yes, but the Americans haven't changed the rules regarding team names, and last time I checked we won the American Revolution!

*wins*

mom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walker Texas Ranger

Yes, but the Americans haven't changed the rules regarding team names, and last time I checked we won the American Revolution!

*wins*

---

It's not about nationalities. It's a worldwide thing for English speakers. Just like spelin liek dis lol.

And cut out the jingoism, or I'll scream about dumb American stereotypes :)

You British invented the word jingo. By using it, you're being jingoist. Or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walker Texas Ranger

You British invented the word jingo. By using it, you're being jingoist. Or something.

---

You just called me British! That's racism! :p

Names("proper nouns") follow different rules than words - it's bleeding simple. An example I've seen before: it's "the Kennedys were shot" not "the Kennedies were shot." You can't change someone's or something's name completely to make it fit grammatical rules - a name's a name. It actually takes less thought than a normal word, because you don't have to change anything, no matter what! All names follow the basic rules of grammar - to make plural, add an "s" or "es," and in order to make possesive, add an 's. One thing that bugs me about this is when people just add an apostrophe after someone's name that ends with an "s"(i.e., Bleys' Crotch), which is not correct(it's "Bleys's Crotch). You only add the apostrophe after a plural noun.

Anyway, just grammar things that bug me. :p

I hate it too, especially online. I usually just assume anyone who can't spell at least decently is stupid, and often make fun of them. I've been on a lot of different forums, and there are always dozens, if not hundreds, of people who type like that, and it most definitely is annoying. More often than not they're kids...

The your/you're and their/they're thing bothers me a lot, but it's not like I have excellent grammer either. I tend to end sentences with prepositions a lot. It's something I need to work on. >_>

People who use words wrong tick me off. Right now, my biggest peeve is people pretending that "data" is an ordinary plural noun, instead of treating it like a mass noun. Now, I realize there is some debate on this issue.

But this I ask of you; If all the following are wrong:

• The water are filthy.
• The wood are being chopped.
• The furniture are broken.
• The information are incorrect.
• The money are being mailed.
• The meat are cooked.
• Their knowledge are vast.
• The software are being developed.
• The laundry are dirty.

... Then how the heck can "The data are missing" be correct?! >:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meat Puppet

Your got that write, Ouch. I hate it two.

---

That made me laugh so much.
:lol:

Who cares? As long as it's comprehendible it ends up being better than throwing the word "gay" around like some sort of prepubescent child with little or no knowledge of the world. That stuff pisses me off more than "your" and "you're".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walker Texas Ranger

Team names. Are singular. One team.

---

So the Texas Rangers is terrible?

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...comprehendible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caspian

comprehendable


So the Texas Rangers is terrible?

---

Nope. That would be are. The mascot name is included, a plural word. Texas is good. The Rangers are good. The Texas Rangers are good.

And the sentence was incorrect to begin with. The Rangers are awesome!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

Who cares? As long as it's comprehendible it ends up being better than throwing the word "gay" around like some sort of prepubescent child with little or no knowledge of the world. That stuff pisses me off more than "your" and "you're".

---

I'd agree. As long as the general message gets across coherently, I don't think it does any harm throwing in a few grammatical errors. If we all started writing in formal prose, I think internet communication would get a bit robotic. Writing a research paper or something that's important on the other hand, does need to contain impeccable grammar.

I can stand a few errors, everyone makes mistakes. If I'm reading a paragraph and there is a constant disregard for rules of grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and all that good stuff then I just give up and stop reading. I find it hard to believe that anyone that actually types like that would ever have anything intelligent to say.

And yes, Yams, people using "gay" to describe something they dislike bugs me a lot more than grammatical errors, but I don't see so many people doing that anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnitarian

People who use words wrong tick me off. Right now, my biggest peeve is people pretending that "data" is an ordinary plural noun, instead of treating it like a mass noun. Now, I realize there is some debate on this issue.

But this I ask of you; If all the following are wrong:

• The water are filthy.
• The wood are being chopped.
• The furniture are broken.
• The information are incorrect.
• The money are being mailed.
• The meat are cooked.
• Their knowledge are vast.
• The software are being developed.
• The laundry are dirty.

... Then how the heck can "The data are missing" be correct?! >:o

---

This bugs me, because it sounds wrong, but "data" is its own plural. "I have lots of data" is correct usage of the term, so is "Lots of data are missing," so therefore "the data are missing" is correct if you mean multiple pieces of data.

Quote:

---

Who cares? As long as it's comprehendible it ends up being better than throwing the word "gay" around like some sort of prepubescent child with little or no knowledge of the world. That stuff pisses me off more than "your" and "you're".

---

I'll drink to that. :love:

Hmm, as long as the post isn't too far gone on the English, like some phone texts I recieve, which do infuriate me, it doesn't matter. I mean, why the hell get mad over something so pathetically trivial? If the post is understood well enough it should matter a ish.
What I hate more is someone picking someone elses post apart with grammatical & spelling corrections like some anally obsessed, unemployed English teacher who won Spelling Bee in 1976 & makes sure everyone KNOWS it. This isn't work, college, school or scrabble, it's an escape from all of those things, An informal board. As long as people steer clear of the two grammatical extremes of Pond Scum, idiotic posts & sphincterally obsessed gonad-hunters who will jump on every missed apostrophy the board will be a better place.

Le Fin

PS: I'm also available for childrens parties PM for details.

PUNCTUATION. How hard is it to break a post up with a few full-stops or commas now and then?

Well I find it kinda hard to read your text in that colour, since I'm using the blue theme so that's a little annoying =P

You shouldn't've said all that;P

Now I've got to post something.

(I'm not particularly perturbed by double conjunctions or doubling the have/got XD)

however when intelligent people use netspeak it annoys me. LEAVE THAT FOR THE PROLES, geeze!

and overly long paragraphs make it so I can't read them. I like having several hard line breaks^_^ It make skimming easier, at least.

Quote:

---

but "data" is its own plural

---

I thought data was the plural of datum.

and people using he/she annoys me. Even if 'they' isn't terribly correct, it still flows better^_^
Maybe that's why I didn't like ff9 so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

Are our schools really so horrible that they can't teach children such basic things?

---

Yes.

I've gotten used to it on the Internet, but I try to keep my grammar up to par. I still make plenty of mistakes though ^^;

I have the habit of forgetting to add periods after my sentences, but my puncuation is pretty good besides that.

I guess it is annoying sometimes (when it is 14 year old AOLer standard) but what are more annoying are people who instantly link improper grammar to being stupid. Please explain the logic in that? Have these people never heard of a thing called dyslexia? If someone has it sometimes that means they cannot write/spell properly but that doesn't make them stupid. And if someone from a non-English speaking country doesn't employ the English language and all it's grammatical rules to some peoples high standards does that make them stupid? I think not.
So really bad grammar is annoying but mistakes here and there aren’t so bad. Americanisms exasperate me more.
Oh there are two things. When people write alot, that drives me crazy (a bit like everytime) and stadiums, it is stadia (though that is one of the things that has changed with time).

i want 2 go 2 that place n those 2 others 2

I figure that sometime around the age of 40, if I'm not a celebrity or anything like that, I will go on a rampage of vandalism to correct everything that's wrong.

actually, probably after retirement.

Caspian: I was going to say something along those lines. :D Like "The Mavericks sucks"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by withered

I guess it is annoying sometimes (when it is 14 year old AOLer standard) but what are more annoying are people who instantly link improper grammar to being stupid. Please explain the logic in that? Have these people never heard of a thing called dyslexia?

---

I have a friend who is dyslexic, I don't hold it against them, but dylexia isn't that common and people with horrible grammar can't just hide behind something like that. They have a legitimate excuse, and I don't feel badly towards them.

People with bad grammar aren't inherently stupid, but they sure aren't showing very much intelligence. It's not as though basic principles of grammar are too terribly hard to understand, and you're certainly not representing yourself as an intelligent person if you're typing like a 10-year-old AOLer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by withered

And if someone from a non-English speaking country doesn't employ the English language and all it's grammatical rules to some peoples high standards does that make them stupid? I think not.

---

If English isn't their first language, that too is a legitimate excuse. I'm happy enough that they're trying, because they are trying. Good for them. Now if the people whose first language is English, all I ask is that they try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

I have a friend who is dyslexic, I don't hold it against them, but dylexia isn't that common and people with horrible grammar can't just hide behind something like that. They have a legitimate excuse, and I don't feel badly towards them.

People with bad grammar aren't inherently stupid, but they sure aren't showing very much intelligence. It's not as though basic principles of grammar are too terribly hard to understand, and you're certainly not representing yourself as an intelligent person if you're typing like a 10-year-old AOLer.


If English isn't their first language, that too is a legitimate excuse. I'm happy enough that they're trying, because they are trying. Good for them. Now if the people whose first language is English, all I ask is that they try.

---

It is true that they do portray themselves as unintelligent because-just like if you cannot understand mathematics- if you cannot comprehend English people just think you are automatically stupid. And hey they could be, but some are not.
I do hate it when people use poor grammar or typing on purpose, especially missing out capital letters because that is just lazy.
And yeah, dyslexia isn't that common I was just trying to think of an example of someone who can be clever but not have a good grasp of the English language. Some people have no excuse for their atrocities to the English language.

Quote:

---

I have a friend who is dyslexic, I don't hold it against them, but dylexia isn't that common and people with horrible grammar can't just hide behind something like that.

---

Shouldn't there be a comma before that last "And"? Well, unless you're one of those people that like to leave out commas after the second to last item in a series.



^^;;;

It doesn't bother me as long as it isn't frequent. I am more annoyed by stuff like...

"OMG R U SEXAY!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!J!O!!KJSAKL:DJ"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

Shouldn't there be a comma before that last "And"? Well, unless you're one of those people that like to leave out commas after the second to last item in a series.



^^;;;

---

Ah! Americanisms! No commas anywhere near 'and(s)'. You would get completely owned for that in the UK.

Quote:

---

Shouldn't there be a comma before that last "And"? Well, unless you're one of those people that like to leave out commas after the second to last item in a series.

---

Nope. Let's take a look:

"I have a friend who is dyslexic, I don't hold it against them, but dylexia isn't that common and people with horrible grammar can't just hide behind something like that."

Now, there should be some sort of full-stop after "dyslexic." A semi-colon would do - but that's the only error. "I have a friend who is dyslexic," "I don't hold it against them," "dyslexia isn't that common and people with...like that" are three indepedent thoughts. The comma is, and belonds before the "but dyslexia..." but is superfluous and wrong before the "and," as it's only a series of two. Unnecessary commas are just as bad as ones not used in the first place.

Quote:

---

Ah! Americanisms! No commas anywhere near 'and(s)'. You would get completely owned for that in the UK.

---

Commas are often absolutely necessary before "and," such as when used to combine two independent clauses. However, when used in a series "I like this, this, and this" apparently now it's proper grammar whether you include the last comma or not. This is just another example of how English has been perverted to comform to lazy people. As if this wasn't bad enough, now it's acceptable to use split infinitives! The grammar world is truly going to quickly go hell in a handbasket. *rolls eyes*

It bothers me when people us a comma before and in a series. It's just not right in my book. :cat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walker Texas Ranger

Team names. Are singular. One team. Not two. Not 50. One. Chelsea is good. Not are. IS.

---

It can go either way when you're referring to a collective. Square makes crap games. Square make crap games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

One thing that bugs me about this is when people just add an apostrophe after someone's name that ends with an "s"(i.e., Bleys' Crotch), which is not correct(it's "Bleys's Crotch). You only add the apostrophe after a plural noun.

---

Again, either way is correct. I always add the S, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

This bugs me, because it sounds wrong, but "data" is its own plural.

---

I thought data was the plural of datum.

---

It's both the plural form of datum and a mass noun like "information." Also, for the record, I hate every single one of you bastards who say "forums" instead of fora.

Quote:

---

and people using he/she annoys me. Even if 'they' isn't terribly correct, it still flows better^_^

---

"They" is incorrect, and "he/she" is unnecessary. When speaking in general terms, masculine pronouns cover both genders.

Affect and effect.

They're different words, with different uses, but a lot* of the time I see them incorrectly used, and it irritates me.

Affect:
"To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar."

Effect:
"Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result."

Oh, and let's not forget Mr. Apostrophe, which does not pluralize (pluralise, if you will :p). "The cat's" does not mean several cats, it refers to something that belongs to the cat.

*Also, it is "a lot", if you are referring to a large number of things, "allot" if you are portioning something out, and "alot" never.

Yeah, I dislike bad grammar.

I write like I talk, but I try to use correct grammar, syntax, spelling, etc. I'll type things like "ain't", "y'all", "prettymuch", "gonna", and stuff like that, and I'll combine words like I would in casual speech ("d'you" for "did you", etc.), but I'll usually put in the correct punctuation where it's needed.

As for collective names (Square, Texas (team), etc.), they should not be pluralized. It would be "Texas Rangers are bad", "Rangers are bad", and "Texas is a bad team." "Texas" is not plural, however, the word "Rangers" is plural. It would depend on the context, I believe, but I'm not sure.

And when I was young, I was taught to put a comma after everything in a list of more than two ("this, that, and the other"), but later in life I was taught different. I've always used the comma, though.

Y'all Brits need to stop putting "ou" where "o" should be--color, armor, and the like. ;)

I've seen people use apostrophes in increasingly idiotic ways, from "wan't"--as in want--to "let's"--as in lets, not let us. A Cleansing is clearly in order.

The frequent and egregious abuse of spelling, grammar, and punctuation at EoFF saddens me.

The comma that follows grammar and precedes and is necessary (at least as I see it). Ignoring said comma seems to eliminate the separation between grammar and punctuation. In general, however, it seems that either usage is acceptible.

To me (and this is what I was taught in Canadian schools), the comma before the and is redundant when used in a series.

WhY DuN YoU LyK PPLe TyP LyK DiS?!

Quote:

---

i mor like d gals outder 2 answer d question dat been brought in2 my mind coz it's mor likely rel8d 2 girls but sum thots from d guys will do also & sure dey hav any idea regardng ds:

if u gals given ur body 2 sumbody else (i can't sez n wrong tym), does it mean or u thnk dat he s best among oder or rathr say dat he s d 1 u shud married & b wth in ur entire life? like being commitd 2 each oder but w8ng until ryt tym comes, makng promises dat he shud b d 1 coz xa nauna.. keep telling 2 d guy dat he shud not look in2 oder girls coz he's lucky enuf 2 hav u as his gf but d fact is ayaw mo xa mwala dhl ngalaw kna nya or wla kna kkta p 2lad nya.. sowe 4 few terms i used but errrr jaz sumthng like dat, i can't stil xplain tho but sure u get my point ryt

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iri Valentine

WhY DuN YoU LyK PPLe TyP LyK DiS?!

---

You do know that typing in that fashion permanently damages your hard drive, right? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masamune1600

You do know that typing in that fashion permanently damages your hard drive, right? :D

---

Yes. That is why I don't type like that. :skull3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeza

To me (and this is what I was taught in Canadian schools), the comma before the and is redundant when used in a series.

---

Only because you sods are too lazy to use it. :p

Unfortunately, your heathen ways have infiltrated into the American system, where it is now sanctioned to remove the comma before the "and" in a series. The last straw was when it was officially pronounced alright to use split infinitives!

Quote:

---

A Cleansing is clearly in order.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

alright

---

Not a word.

[q=Raistlin]One thing that bugs me about this is when people just add an apostrophe after someone's name that ends with an "s"(i.e., Bleys' Crotch), which is not correct(it's "Bleys's Crotch). You only add the apostrophe after a plural noun. [/q]Actually, you CAN use an apostrophe after a word ending in 's'; it's not just for plurals.
It's an old rule, but still in force. "James' Philosophy" is just as valid as "James's Philosophy". I don't know whether this rule was retained in the US, but it's certainly fine in UK English.
The two are pretty well interchangeable, though.[q=Kishi][q=Raistlin]alright[/q]
Not a word.[/q]According to the dictionary, it is. It's non-standard, but still legit.

Ok, my apollogies for anyone that I hurt with my bad english skills...
I'm learning the best I can, so be patient.
thank you.

If English isn't your first language, then no one should give you any crap about your grammar skills, obviously. You automatically get ten million points just for trying.

I'm late, and got fed up trying to read everyone's replies, so I hope I'm not repeating what someone else already said.....

I absolutely can't stand when people are too lazy (or too stupid) to do the obvious things, like using commas and periods, not capitalizing the beginning of a sentence, and not using a capital "I" when referring to oneself. Its I, not i!!!!!

It looks so friggin' stupid. It makes the author seem like an 8 year-old.

I can understand when it happens sometimes, because its just a mis-hit of the keyboard.

Just my two cents worth.

And you know what else???

TyPiNg LiKe ThIs Is F#CkInG sTuPiD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

If English isn't your first language, then no one should give you any crap about your grammar skills, obviously. You automatically get ten million points just for trying.

---

Absolutely!

Quote:

---

Not a word.

---

I type how I talk. I'll say "alright" in speech, just as I may use other non-standard words. I would not use it in an essay, but I consider online conversation to be just as informal as offline. :p

What? "All right" and "alright" sound exactly the same, just like "a lot" and "alot" do.

Yes but alright, as D said, is a word, whereas alot is not. It's a bad comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

What? "All right" and "alright" sound exactly the same, just like "a lot" and "alot" do.

---

Ok, attribute it to general laziness, then, or my vernacular. :p

Why not just start saying "Aite" instead?

fo shizzle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

fo shizzle

---

Psshht. Fo shizzle my ass grizzle. (In other words, no.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

Are our schools really so horrible that they can't teach children such basic things?

---

Some schools are that horrible. My Secondary School in Solihull stopped giving the pupils spelling tests and grammar lessons at the age of twelve or thirteen. Many of these pupils had problems with writing even the simplest of words as a consequence. If this is the case in other places it comes as no surprise to me that many people can't spell. Is it just me or did anybody else suffer a premature end to these lessons?

Quote:

---

Is it just me or did anybody else suffer a premature end to these lessons?

---

Yep. We haven't had very many actual grammar lessons in high school at all. Our grammar books just sorta sit unused.