Page 2 of 3
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:51 pm
by DJR
I almost forgot the case of using "of" instead of "have" ...
as in, "I could of gone to that movie."
ack!!!
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:09 pm
by capstone
DJR wrote:I almost forgot the case of using "of" instead of "have" ...
as in, "I could of gone to that movie."
ack!!!
I have a nephew that does this. I so want to correct him, for his benefit and mine.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:30 pm
by mari
For the Oxford comma haters. Made me giggle
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:42 pm
by Chancellor
Oh dear! Grammar IS hard. Thanks for the correction Capstone.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:45 am
by somantu
Red Barn wrote:Gifted. Lessoned. Cliniced. Trialed...
I love those terms... I like made up words
But I squirm at: "I should've
went to the store" and the dreaded "it could
of been worse."
And being a designer, I can not stand the use of inch marks instead of quotation marks––and vice versa. Makes me nuts.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:23 am
by Chisamba
I happen to be a proponent of the Oxford comma.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:26 pm
by KathyK
As are all people of refinement and culture.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:04 pm
by DD2
Grammar is no longer taught in school and when it is, only minimally. (e.g. parts of speech, basic sentence structure))
Mari, the cartoon you posted is awesome!
Finally, my biggest cringe is when I hear people, specifically my husband, avoid the use of past participles where they are needed: I've went there before. Ugh!!
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:05 pm
by DD2
Just for fun....
What is wrong with this sentence?
I have never been to Paris.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:51 pm
by KathyK
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:22 pm
by Tarlo Farm
But I've been to Oklahoma
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:48 pm
by KathyK
I come from Alabama with a banjo on my knee.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:55 pm
by boots-aregard
DD2 wrote:Just for fun....
What is wrong with this sentence?
I have never been to Paris.
That you have never been there? Poor you. Go on Wheel of Fortune and win the trip.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:30 am
by bailey
LOL, good one Boots!
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 4:48 pm
by DD2
kathyK..all those links missed the mark on this one.
Been is the past participle of "to be". Therefore, one could say "I've never been IN Paris" or "I've never GONE to Paris". But because you can't say "I am to Paris" it's odd that saying "I've been TO Paris" is common in Englisn. By the way, if you speak French or Spanish this statement doesn't translate.
And btw, Boots, I have traveled to Paris and pretty much everywhere else in the world without the assistance of Wheel of Fortune, but thanks so much for your concern
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:02 pm
by FlyingLily
"it's odd that saying "I've been TO Paris" is common in Englisn".
Now I understand. You are talking about Englisn; a language not commonly spoken. With weird rules.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:50 pm
by capstone
"I may be bias" or "I am bias". I've seen this twice in the past few days.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:04 pm
by hoopoe
have been is accepted in the Oxford dictionary as to mean " to have visited" so " I have never been to Paris" is grammatically correct.
Be , along with meaning "am" also means to occupy a place or position
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:54 pm
by Koolkat
DD2 wrote: Been is the past participle of "to be". Therefore, one could say "I've never been IN Paris" or "I've never GONE to Paris". But because you can't say "I am to Paris" it's odd that saying "I've been TO Paris" is common in Englisn. By the way, if you speak French or Spanish this statement doesn't translate.
I appreciate your point, but it's not entirely clear to me how the "argument" that the literal translation doesn't exist is relevant. Perhaps you were making a different point.
I will say that on Thanksgiving, DH is sitting on the sofa, lost in E.B. White (who does not weigh in on this topic). All is right with the world.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:05 am
by KathyK
DD2 wrote:kathyK..all those links missed the mark on this one.
Been is the past participle of "to be". Therefore, one could say "I've never been IN Paris" or "I've never GONE to Paris". But because you can't say "I am to Paris" it's odd that saying "I've been TO Paris" is common in Englisn. By the way, if you speak French or Spanish this statement doesn't translate.
This all may be true, but English is full of constructs that if picked apart, don't make sense. But they are still considered to be correct, if not entirely formal, grammar.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:08 pm
by KathyK
Please stop using "purposefully" when you mean "purposely." You sound silly.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:09 pm
by Rockabilly
And when did "hurtful" come about?
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:32 pm
by KathyK
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:34 pm
by Rockabilly
Well, I always thought I was behind times and this proves it!
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:12 pm
by PaulaO
KathyK wrote:Please stop using "purposefully" when you mean "purposely." You sound silly.
I cannot like this enough.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:53 pm
by ironbessflint
I saw this gem over the weekend:
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:44 pm
by M&M
seahorsefarm wrote:silk wrote:"Feathers" on a horse.... No, feathers are on birds, and feather is on a horse.
I've heard and used this for so long (singular or plural) that I thought it was just another piece of horse-y jargon and it doesn't bother me in the least.
Chestnuts on horses' legs on the other hand.......
Ducking for cover, but - what's wrong with chestnuts?
Kathy, I used an incorrect apostrophe recently, too. Horror's!!! I think it's from seeing it so often, one subliminally assimilates it. Yuck.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:21 am
by KathyK
M&M wrote:Kathy, I used an incorrect apostrophe recently, too. Horror's!!! I think it's from seeing it so often, one subliminally assimilates it. Yuck.
I know! It's enough to make one consider never reading anything on line again.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:38 am
by Tarlo Farm
Feathers refer to the long hairs at the base of draft legs. Chestnuts are the hard crusty spots on the inside of all legs. The "reminders/remains" of that extra toes horses used to have. Continue to use.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:54 am
by Koolkat
I refer to "chestnuts" when I am referring to the anatomical feature or referring to "a horse's chestnuts" or "horses' chestnuts" as they have more than one/horse. But in referring to one specific chestnut (like this) on a horse's leg, I would call it a chestnut - not nuts.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:14 am
by texsuze
What about this:
"Denise is a rider that will go far in life"
I was taught: Person or critter = "who"; Object or non-living thing = "that"
I don't hear anyone say "She is a rider WHO will go far in life". Everyone seems to be using "THAT". Drives me nuts, even if it is correct. Comments?
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:04 pm
by LeoApp
Recently read these two in the newspaper:
"blind sighted" (they meant blind-sided).
"hone in on" - this really bugs me. It is HOME in people!! HOME IN!!
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:49 pm
by capstone
LeoApp wrote:"blind sighted" (they meant blind-sided).
This is truly terrible.
LeoApp wrote:"hone in on" - this really bugs me. It is HOME in people!! HOME IN!!
Is it? I will stand by my use of it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:50 pm
by Astral
LeoApp wrote:Recently read these two in the newspaper:
"blind sighted" (they meant blind-sided).
"hone in on" - this really bugs me. It is HOME in people!! HOME IN!!
"Hone" doesn't bother me as much as replacing it with "horn."
"Horn in on." WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:51 pm
by capstone
Astral wrote:"Horn in on." WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
Agree.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:52 pm
by KathyK
The discussion in the link seems to support the idea that although it is in usage, "hone in" is considered to be incorrect.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:54 pm
by capstone
KathyK wrote:The discussion in the link seems to support the idea that although it is in usage, "hone in" is considered to be incorrect.
The original definition does not give that impression, although it does go on to give some commentary to that effect. I take this to be one of those things that is now correct due to use over time.
More info:
http://blog.dictionary.com/hone-in-vs-home-in/
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:54 pm
by KathyK
capstone wrote:Astral wrote:"Horn in on." WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
Agree.
To horn in is to push your way into something.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horn%20inIt's been documented in use for over a century.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:57 pm
by capstone
Well, there you go. I still don't like it!
I'm not sure this thread is really proving anything other than most if not all of us make (honest) mistakes from time to time. Maybe we should be more tolerant of others?
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:06 pm
by Astral
Which makes sense!
But usually, when I've heard it, it's been by people using it in place of "hone/home in on."
You know, because words that sound similar can be used interchangeably...
But I really shouldn't comment on this thread - my brain just shuts down sometimes, and I say/type all manner of incorrect and nonsensical things!
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:46 pm
by boots-aregard
capstone wrote:Well, there you go. I still don't like it!
I'm not sure this thread is really proving anything other than most if not all of us make (honest) mistakes from time to time. Maybe we should be more tolerant of others?
Not so fast. The meanings are different, so context would be required to determine which is correct. One 'homes in' by (correctly) finding the needle in the haystack. One 'horns in' on a happy couple doing what happy couples do in a haystack.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:19 pm
by LeoApp
to hone is to sharpen, as in hone skills, or hone a knife
home in means to to zero in on a target
Not at all interchangeable. Just because something is said or written over and over again incorrectly, it doesn't mean it should be accepted as correct.
I was not even talking about horn in.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:30 pm
by Koolkat
Using "kind of" and "sort of" to modify a word when you mean "somewhat", etc. - I am accused very guilty of this abuse. Sloppy. . . .
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:18 pm
by capstone
Koolkat wrote:Using "kind of" and "sort of" to modify a word when you mean "somewhat", etc. - I am accused very guilty of this abuse. Sloppy. . . .
I agree! And I am a repeat offender as well.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:12 am
by Astral
One that I saw TWICE today on facebook: "syked."
Not a word. In any way.
Everyone complains about autocorrect, yet things like that seem common...
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:36 pm
by FlyingLily
Not exactly a grammatical peeve; more like a "WTH are they teaching in school in Texas?!" -- sale ad I saw just now which is wrong in every possible way:
Sail or trade
$2,000 — LaCoste, Texas
His name is Hoss he is 20 years old and he is such a sweet heart with so much to give does not look or act his age. He is not for young children. looking to get something younger. It brakes my heart to do this
he is an old roping horse. The person that had him befor me roped off him but sense we have had him no one has thrown a rope off him just strictly playdays. He knows all playdays loads and catches easy have a few videos at request. Pm me. He is up to date with Coggins and shoes teeth floated I'm asking $2,000 to a good loving home I am up for trades but horse must be broke no bite or kick... I am not in a big hurry to sell him I have all the time in the world so please only serious inquiries. Locates near Castroville Tx.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:44 pm
by Rockabilly
FlyingLily wrote:Not exactly a grammatical peeve; more like a "WTH are they teaching in school in Texas?!" -- sale ad I saw just now which is wrong in every possible way:
Sail or trade
$2,000 — LaCoste, Texas
His name is Hoss he is 20 years old and he is such a sweet heart with so much to give does not look or act his age. He is not for young children. looking to get something younger. It brakes my heart to do this
he is an old roping horse. The person that had him befor me roped off him but sense we have had him no one has thrown a rope off him just strictly playdays. He knows all playdays loads and catches easy have a few videos at request. Pm me. He is up to date with Coggins and shoes teeth floated I'm asking $2,000 to a good loving home I am up for trades but horse must be broke no bite or kick... I am not in a big hurry to sell him I have all the time in the world so please only serious inquiries. Locates near Castroville Tx.
Oh, I think so too. It's like chalk scratching across a board. It also sounds like where I live in Tennessee too.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:29 pm
by KathyK
FlyingLily wrote:Not exactly a grammatical peeve; more like a "WTH are they teaching in school in Texas?!"
Creationism.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:54 am
by Suzon
mari wrote:For the Oxford comma haters. Made me giggle
Not for nuttin', but does anyone else think Stalin looks like Freddy Mercury here?
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:20 am
by KathyK
He does!
