As in, doesn’t matter at all to you.
I will always use “who” because “whom” gives off too much of a Reddit vibe.
Y’all is completely fine to use. It was a mistake for English to lose its distinction between second person singular and plural. Either we accept the word “y’all” or we go back to saying thou and thee, either way we can’t just keep on awkwardly dancing around not having a distinction between second person plural and singular.
My pet peeve is people thinking they are being clever by complaining about the supposed incorrect usage of literally as figuratively.
People, including famous authors, have been literally (not hyperbole) using the word as an intensifier, and therefore, figuratively, since 1847, e.g. F Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens, and William Thackeray.
Did we change the definition of ‘literally’? | Merriam-Webster - https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally
This one is great.
- Anyways instead of Anyway
- your instead of you’re
- their instea or they’re
and a couple others…
2 and 3 are horrible though. These completely change the meaning of a sentence :(
Putting the punctuation outside the quotes (or parentheses) when the quote is only part of a sentence. I.e. He said “I need to go now”.
I am not in defence of but actually annoyed by:
Using if instead of whether. For example: “I will check if the window is open”. This means: “if the window is open, I will check”. What people mean to say is “I will check whether the window is open”.
Also, using was in hypotheticals instead of the correct were. For example: if I were going to check whether the window was open, I wouldn’t be standing here. Not “if I was going to check […]”.
Ah good one. Less vs fewer is another like this. IDGAF the distinction there either
I do. If it’s countable, it’s fewer. Fewer people, fewer houses. If it’s incountable it’s less. Less rice, less water.
Most of it, as long as it’s understandable I don’t care. Language is about making yourself understood.
“Y’all”
I will die on the hill that it’s more efficient and neutral than the alternatives.
English has to bend over backwards to make up for the fact that it doesn’t have a natural plural 2nd person form.
Ye Y’all Youse (Dublin)
“Y’all” and the plural “all y’all” are part of my daily vocabulary. And I’m in no way of southern origin.
First we’re all like “Thou is too casual, gotta use the plural second person instead.” Then oh no, turns out number in pronouns is actually useful sometimes, but thou sounds old fashioned now, so we just gotta re-pluralize the second person. And then you get y’all.
I like y’all, but I almost wish we could just bring thou back.
For years I have said that y’all is the best thing to come out of the south.
Yinz is at least as efficient
I recently realized that w’all needs to be shakespeared too. Following the pattern of other languages, y’all and w’all are missing in English.
Also, I shakespeared the verb shakespeared, in reference to Shakespeare making up new words by following patterns among other words.
I won’t argue against w’all. I’m fine with it in principle. But it’s not something I think I’ve ever said, or ever heard anyone say.
Anything is acceptable if it’s for comedic effect.
In Dutch you’re supposed to write “Volgens mij” (“in my opinion”), but it’s pronounced more like it’s one word. So I feel “volgensmij” flows better
volgens mei niet!
Anything that is used colloquially but technically isn’t correct because some loser didn’t like it 200 years ago. To boldly keep on splitting infinitives is a rejection of language prescriptivism!
Period AFTER the end of a quote.
My buddy Joe told me “I will live and die on this hill”.
I’m shocked no one else pointed this out. This isn’t a rule of grammar — this is a style rule, which isn’t actually part of the English language. Different style guides recommend different things. This happens to be specifically delineated by American/Canadian style guides vs British/Australian style guides; however anyone could publish a style guide. If USA Today decided to make and publish a style guide that they used in their articles that said there should be periods both within and after a quote, that would be valid by that styleguide.
For me in American English it’s also the commas that go inside the closing quotation marks, even when they’re not part the original quote. I die a little every time I see this, so illogical.
If it’s not part of the quote, just leave it outside.
Absolutely. Anyone who has done any programming should recognize that changing what’s in the quote is corrupting the data.
If I’m quoting a question though, then it makes sense to include the question mark in the quote.
I laughed when Joe asked "That's the hill you chose?".If the murky depths of my memories of school is correct, the location of the period is dictated by whether or not it is part of the quote. So, if the quote should have a period at the end, it goes inside the quotation marks. If the quote does not include the period (e.g. you are quoting part of a sentence), but you are at the end of a sentence in your own prose, you put the period on the outside of the quotation marks.
Ugh, there should be one before AND after!
I hate how much I agree with you in principle and how ugly it looks in practice. With doubled periods, at least - different marks don’t trigger that same reaction. For example, a question mark inside, followed by a period or comma outside feels right.
So is the correct?
My buddy Joe told me. “I will live and die on this hill”.
My buddy Joe told me: “I will live and die on this hill.”.
imo.
You’re saying two separate sentences and they both need punctuation.
The whole thread and post is about not caring about minor errors, sure. And half the time we don’t add periods to the end of our text messages… but, it’s a quoted sentence. If we’re quoting, and you’re not going to use correct punctuation for one of the sentences, at least close the sentence within the quotations. Otherwise, why quote at all.
My buddy Joe told me that he’d live and die on this hill.
vs
My buddy Joe told me, “I will live and die on this hill.”.
It’s just easier not to quote unless is something specific, factual, and evidentiary… in which case you might as well go formal with it.
So wait, you don’t care, or you think it should be done a certain way? OP asked what doesn’t matter to you at all.
Isn’t that how it’s done in English (Traditional)?
I’m of the opinion that so long as it is understandable it does not matter. English was once written as it sounded and there was no spelling consistancy. Those who were literate had little issue with it.
Some related reading: https://ctcamp.franklinresearch.uga.edu/resources/reading-middle-english https://cb45.hsites.harvard.edu/middle-english-basic-pronunciation-and-grammar
Edit: Okay my rant is more related to spelling than grammar but still interesting.
Singular they. I’ve had this opinion since long before I even knew about non-binary people. Using “he or she” to refer to a person without specifying gender is clunky as hell.
but singular they isn’t incorrect in the least. anyone claiming otherwise has some agenda to push in spite of the facts of it’s use for a good long while
It’s not, but with… Political views as they are, it’s gotten a lot of pushback. People don’t even realize they use it regularly.
“Someone called for you”
“What did they want?”
Bam. Easy. I was stoked when magic the gathering changed card wording from “he or she” to “they” because it cleans up the wording so much.
A good point I heard though is that singular “they” is used when you don’t know the person’s identity. To the extent that it could be multiple people involved, hence the use. Obviously, it’s at slight odds with “someone” in this example, but still.
Fun fact though, we do actually use “they” in that way in Polish, in old-fashioned military slang, like “Where’s private Kowalski? They were supposed to be here”. (Edit: I think that might be used when addressing them directly, so this might be a bad example, but then there is no version in English since “you” covers all genders and numbers) I don’t know if non-binary people here actually use it.
Political views as they are, it’s gotten a lot of pushback
Yeah, the comment above mixed up grammar nazis with actual nazis I guess.
Using commas, wherever you want.
They should be logical thought breaks, not adhere to any rules of grammar.
I have to, take issue with this, one. The rules of commas are, pretty, easy actually: Use a, comma where you’d, pause when speaking. If, you read it out, loud and sound like Captain, Kirk then you put, a comma in the, wrong spot.
Found Christopher Walkin.
This one I’m so guilty of, it just seems fine when used in moderation, even if I know it’s wrong.
I’ve always just used them where natural breaks would be if the sentence was spoken. I know how it’s supposed to be used and I’ll do it correctly when writing papers, but it hurts inside to see it that way. I don’t understand how it improves comprehension.
I can’t read things comfortably with too many commas. My internal monologue stops at each if them.
I mean commas can be used specifically for pauses in speech
Right. Too many commas makes for too many pauses in speech.
There’s places where a comma can cause psychic damage.
