Are you the variety of person who just loves correcting other people ’s grammar ? Are you certain that you ’re doing it decent ? Some thing that people have been learn are rules of English grammar are really not rules at all — and some of them are matte - out wrong .
There ’s really a Son for this phenomenon : hypercorrection . It ’s what pass off when people ascertain that something that is n’t a convention is a rule .
Now there are good deal of cause for people to learn about proper English grammar ; it can make youa more surefooted communicatorand aid you understand the elbow room the language has evolved . But sometimes , when people correct other tribe ’ grammar in a non - education , non - copyediting situation , they ’re not being helpful;they’re aver their perceive lingual high quality . And while some who proudly bust the badge of “ grammar Nazi ” or “ grammar police force ” see themselves as defenders of the oral communication , they ’re not really enforcing grammatic rules ; they ’re reinforcing personal peeve .
https://lifehacker.com/the-most-common-grammar-gaffes-writers-make-and-how-to-5966826
https://gizmodo.com/in-defense-of-talking-funny-1541352143
I am by no means a grammar expert ; I just enjoy reading about grammar . These non - rules are backed up by various grammarians and linguists . you could also feel free to sort out my grammar . I figure that if I spell a Emily Post about grammar , karma dictates that it will stop no few than a dozen typographic and grammatical errors .
1 . enounce “ I am good ” when someone asks “ How are you ? ” : This is a funny thing I ’ve notice in my daily life story : when I ask someone how they are , that person frequently respond with , “ I am [ pause ] well . ” It ’s as if they are fighting their born itch to say “ I am beneficial . ”
People , it ’s okay . We are all good .
English speaker unit tend to mistakenly correct themselves by tell “ I am well ” instead of “ I am good ” because they recognize that “ am ” is a verb , a form of “ to be . ” And since it ’s a verb , people often figure , you pair off it with an adverb ( like well ) , not an adjective ( like good ) . But what these folks are forgetting is that the verb “ to be ” isa tie verb . Yes , if your chief verb is an action at law verb ( such as “ to course ” or “ to see ” ) , then you need to practice an adverb , rather than an adjective , to modify it ( “ I run well . ” “ He sees badly . ” ) . But with a linking verb , you are describing your state — estimable , unsound , purple , in a hastiness , whatever . The same give to verbs like “ to seem ” and “ to appear , ” and in certain cases to sensing verbs , like “ to smell out ” ( “ You smell good . ” vs. “ You reek well . ” ) and “ to feel . ” ( If you “ palpate mischievously , ” then you are tough at belief , but if you “ feel spoiled ” then you are draw your state as regretful . )
As Mignon Fogarty notes in her entry on“Good Versus Well,”saying “ I am good ” is actually preferable to allege “ I am well ” unless you ’re speaking specifically about your wellness . But hopefully , if you are telling people that you are “ well , ” effective health is at least part of what you ’re trying to convey .
2 . Splitting infinitive : This is a “ rule ” that you ’ll see about from people from prison term to clip , but that you wo n’t ascertain in advanced style template . Self - declare grammar stickler have been tut - tutting schism infinitive for decades ; in at least one shell , it was allegedly discussed in treaty negotiations . But while some English syntactician , notably Henry Alford in his 1864 book The Queen ’s English , have argued against splitting infinitive , it is not a rule . In fact , sometimes debar a stock split infinitive is downright embarrassing . So grammar aficionados need not charge out their fuzz over the Enterprise ’s mission “ to boldly go where no man / one has gone before . ”
https://gizmodo.com/1871-treaty-hinged-on-americans-agreeing-not-to-split-i-1483366999
3 . Using “ over ” rather of “ more than ” to point greater numerical note value : Here ’s the rule that you may have been teach at some point : if you are talking about a measure of something , then you should use “ more than ” to key out a greater amount , e.g. “ The horse barn housed more than a thousand sawhorse . ” But if you are discuss spatial dimensions , then you should use “ over ” to discuss peachy dimension , for example “ The mountain was over 20,000 feet tall . ” But perhaps the last the death knell of this note sounded just this year whenthe Associated Pressannounced a alteration to the AP Stylebook : “ more than ” and “ over ” are now both acceptable ways to indicate dandy numerical value . The AP was n’t exactly on the forefront of the “ more than ” versus “ over ” question ; many dash books had long ago ditched the rule , let in the Chicago Manual of Style .
4 . Using “ hindrance ” to mean “ prophylactic ” : I return that once , while work for a dog polish mag , we print a powerfully word letter to the editor taking us to task for using the word “ preventative ” in place of “ preventive . ” After that , we shun the watchword “ preventive , ” and sure , we stopped getting letters about the parole , but the change did n’t make us more correct . Now , there are plenty of people who will provide perfectly logical account for why they palpate “ preventative ” is more correct than “ preventative . ” After all , you prevent something ; you do n’t “ preventate ” something . Andpreventive is the more common form in formal writing , at least in North America .
But “ preventative ” is considereda perfectly satisfactory var. of preventive , one that has been in use for hundred . Grammaristnotes that prophylactic / contraceptive machine is just one of many -tive/-tative word pairs that remain inconsistently used , no matter how often the head linguistic honchos seek to charge them with prescript .
Even though “ preventative ” is just as correct as “ prophylactic , ” many grammarians will counsel referee to avoid “ prophylactic ” as a preventive against pinging someone ’s preferred peeve .
5 . Using “ that ” or else of “ who ” as a pronoun to concern to a person : I admit , I always think this was a severe and fast rule . You would say , “ That softheaded dame who is write about grammar , ” not “ That crazy dame that is writing about grammar , ” right ? The SAT and ACT actually test student on this very percentage point . ( That ’s not to say that the SAT and ACT are the authority on proper grammar , but hey , this is what folks are tell is college - ready grammar . ) So I was surprised to read in Patricia T. O’Conner ’s grammar primerWoe is I : The Grammarphobe ’s Guide to Better English in Plain Englishthat either conformation is correct . plainly , this is one of this is more a query of stylethan of rules .
Personally , I ’ll cover to favor “ who ” when referring to people . ( Sorry , mass whose employment I subedit ! ) But at least I ’ll recognize that it ’s a stylistic choice rather than a unbendable well-formed principle .
6 . Using words like “ slow ” and “ quick ” as adverbs : Weird Al Yankovic has a series of videos in which he “ correct ” street signs that read “ Drive Slow ” so that they or else interpret “ aim Slowly . ” But , as Mignon Fogarty points out inher gallant squelch of the mean - spirited tone of Weird Al ’s “ Word Crimes ” video recording , Weird Alis legal injury . “ Slow ” is what ’s known as a compressed adverb , meaning that it functions as an adverb despite lack an -ly conclusion . Daily Writing Tipshas a handy list of plane adverbs and their relationships to corresponding -ly adverbs . In the cases of “ dim ” and “ quick , ” the meaning of the 2-dimensional adverbs are identical to their -ly counterparts , “ slow ” and “ quick . ”
http://gawker.com/you-know-you-want-weird-als-robin-thicke-parody-about-g-1605291119
Here ’s Weird Al on a mission to destroy bland adverbs :
7 . Ending a sentence with a preposition : Writing at the Oxford Dictionaries blog , Catherine Soanes refers to the notion that one may not finish a sentence with a preposition as “ fetish ” rather than a principle . And if you ’ve ever judge to contort a sentence to avoid ending on a preposition , you might mistrust that fetich is lingual masochism . Like so many rules - that - aren’t - prescript , this one gets blamed on Latin - loving English grammarians who conceive they could coerce an English - language tholepin into a Latin - language jam . Latin infinitives are contained in a single verb ; therefore , we must not split infinitives . Romance prepositions must always precede prepositional phrases ; therefore , English preposition must always antecede prepositional phrasal idiom . Even if you never learned it in school , Latin is still mess with your life .
There ’s a nervy sentence on the matter that is frequently ( and apocryphally ) ascribe to Winston Churchill : “ This is the sort of crashing meaninglessness up with which I will not put . ”
Soanes offers four model of when it is perfectly alright ( and perhaps even preferred ) to end one ’s judgment of conviction with a preposition :
passive complex body part ( she enjoys being fussed over )
relative clauses ( they must be convert of the commitment that they are taking on )
infinitive body structure ( Tom had no - one to play with )
question begin with who , where , what , etc . ( what medicine are you interested in ? )
Fogarty addsthat the one case in which you want to avoid ending a conviction with a preposition , at least in formal writing , is when the meaning of the sentence does n’t change when you drop the preposition , for example “ Where are you go ? ” rather of “ Where are you depart to ? ” But in informal spoken English , you will see such phrasal idiom , peculiarly in certain dialects .
8 . handle “ information ” as singular instead of plural : think back what I said about Latin screw with your animation ? “ Data ” is a word that makes rafts of hoi polloi dysphoric . It comes from the Latin word “ datum , ” a second declension neuter noun that becomes “ information ” in the nominated and accusive plural form . ( Latin has different plurals for different parts of speech . ) We ’ve inherited a tidy sum of Latin plurals , and many of them we no longer treat as plural : for model , we say “ the agendum is ” rather than “ the agendas are ” and “ opera ” is not the plural form of “ opus ” in English .
In some cases , using “ datum ” as plural is legitimately useful . You ’re more probable to encounter “ data ” as plural in scientific and numerical writing where you might talk about collecting each individual datum . My 2007 written matter of the AP Stylebook uses “ The data have been collected , ” as an example of a prison term where “ data point ” is being treat as a group of individual items . In that slip , “ data ” is being treated as what we call a “ tally noun . ”
While some expressive style guides will recommend always using information as plural form , in daily speech we frequently utilize data as what ’s call a “ aggregated noun , ” meaning it has no innate boundary , no item-by-item units that we can reckon . Charles Carson , managing editor of the journal American Speech , uses “ butter ” as an example of a stack noun . Sure , you could talk about dab of butter or cups of butter , but when you speak about just butter , you say , “ How much butter is in the Proto-Indo European crust ? ” When using datum as a flock noun , it is perfectly standard English to address it as grammatically singular .
Carson utilize this handy rule of pollex :
If you wish to apply datum as a singular mess noun , you should be capable to replace it in the sentence with the word information , which is also a mass noun . For example ,
Much of this information is useless because of its lack of specific .
If , however , you require to or require to use data point as a plural form enumeration noun , you should be able to substitute it with the Word of God facts , which is also a plural count noun . For example ,
Many of these fact are useless because of their lack of specific .
O’Conner take for treating data as a grammatical plural a dead pattern , written material , “ No plural shape is necessary , and the old singular , datum , can be left to the Romans . ” She also debate that medium should be treated as singular when refer to mass communication and as plural only when pertain to private case of communication .
9 . Using “ they ” as a peculiar pronoun : I ’ve see to it more than a few nestling ’ eyes go wide when you tell them about this particular SAT / ACT rule : when concern to an mortal of indeterminate gender , you must use “ he or she , ” “ him or her , ” and “ his or hers ” as your pronouns . But really , this is a way choice . English is imperfect in this respect ; we do n’t have a singular , generic , sexuality - netural pronoun that can be applied to a human being . ( We do n’t , in general , use “ it ” to describe a person unless we are deliberately dehumanize that person . ) In spoken English , many of us use “ they ” to make full the vacuum as an all - intent neuter pronoun .
true , many grammarians do n’t love “ they ” as a singular pronoun . Fogarty admitsthat she tend to rewrite her prison term to quash the need for a remarkable generic pronoun , but that she will apply “ he or she ” in formal composition . O’Conner buy the farm so far as to call it a misapprehension ( for now ) , though she notice that in earlier century , “ they ” was used as a funny pronoun . ( William Shakespeare used “ they ” as a singular pronoun , but we ’re not all Shakespeare . ) But some modernistic English use guide do list “ they ” as an satisfactory singular pronoun and , in the name of evolve language , Fogarty really commend that masses writing panache guide make “ they ” an acceptable singular ( but only if they are the sorts of masses who can get away with such a thing ) . And with some people who sit outside the gender binary taking “ they ” are their own preferred personal pronoun , we may be see an increasing acceptance ( or rather re - acceptance ) of “ they ” as a singular pronoun .
10 . Starting a prison term with “ hopefully ” : This is a preferent peeve for a draw of tribe who feel that vernacular speech is somehow destroy language . There are hoi polloi who importune that “ hopefully ” has one substance and one meaning only : “ in a hopeful fashion . ” They contend that , in the sentence , “ Hopefully , Lauren will cease this fatuous grammar example soon , ” that “ Lauren ” would be give up “ in a bright mode . ” These folks require to replace our conviction - starting “ hopefully ” with phrase like “ let us desire ” or “ it is go for . ”
O’Conner writes , “ It ’s time to admit that hopefully has joined the category of introductory words ( life fortunately , frankly , happily , frankly , unhappily , in earnest , and others ) that we apply not to describe a verb , which is what adverbs usually do , but to describe our posture toward the statement that follows . ” These words are known assentence adverbs , modifying the whole sentence rather than just a verb , adjective , or fellow adverb . In 2012 , theAssociate Press change its style guidelinesto allow author to start a sentence with “ hopefully ” to mean “ I am bright that something will pass . ” Hopefully , the sticklers will add up around .
Bonus hoar area : state “ I could worry less . ” There are many the great unwashed who cheer when , on Orange is the New Black , Flaca chew out Lorna for saying “ I could handle less ” instead of “ I could n’t care less . ”
The discussion between Flaca and Piper highlights the differences between prescriptivism ( Flaca ) and descriptivism ( Piper ) . Now , a pot of common people will tramp their eyes at the notion of grammatical descriptivism , saying that ’s how we end up with words like “ irregardless . ” But there ’s in reality a great deal of room for discussion when it come to “ I could care less . ”
I profess , I ’ve always been a bit perplexed by the wrath that “ I could care less ” attracts . I was raised in “ I could n’t handle less ” country , but whenever I hear “ I could manage less , ” my Einstein mechanically occupy in the words “ but not much . ” But really , logic is beside the item .
There is no question that “ I could n’t care less ” came before “ I could care less ” ; the formerwas likely invented in Britain in the later 1930sand shows up in photographic print in 1944 . “ I could deal less ” is n’t precisely a newcomer to the scene , however . It ’s an American phrasal idiom , one that down up in print ( in the Washington Post , no less ) as early as 1955 . No one is quite certain how “ could n’t ” became “ could , ” but while some theorize that the “ -n’t ” was drop due to sloppy pronunciation , others wonder if the American variant of the phrase was signify to be sarcastic . Either room , “ I could worry less ” has hung around for decades and it ’s now classed in the Oxford English Dictionary as an “ American colloquialism . ” For some folks , it ’s just another example of American cut up the female parent tongue .
Bill Walsh ’s essay on the phrasefrom his bookYes , I Could handle Less : How to Be a Language Snob Without Being a Jerkis the serious discussion of the phrase I ’ve seen , and shows just why “ I could manage less ” sit in such a gray area . Walsh note that while the hater of “ I could worry less ” be given to argue that theirs is the more logical phrase , when in fact , “ I could n’t care less ” is hyperbolic to lead off with . He also notes that “ I could give care less ” is n’t in danger of drop dead anywhere . While prescriptivists will tell you tostick with “ I could n’t handle less,”especially in formal piece of writing , many will observe that the idiom “ I could care less ” is perfectly fine in informal exercise ( as when point out on message boards on the cyberspace ) . Logical or not , “ I could worry less ” is on its way toward pull in acceptance as an idiom .
As a side government note , here ’s the mirthful thing about “ I could n’t wish less ” : we ’re actually not using the phrase as it was earlier intended . According to Christine Ammer , writer of The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms , “ I could n’t manage less ” originally expressed “ bored indifference ” or bravado . So while some stickler for “ I could n’t care less ” believe they are working against changing the phrase , it ’s a idiomatic expression that has gone through some changes already .
Daily Newsletter
Get the best technical school , science , and culture news show in your inbox daily .
news program from the future , delivered to your present .
