What you say drives me crazy.

[Tony in Tarzana]

Wossamatta U? lol

 

[ClassicIsBetter]

I think it's the decline of active reading, more than anything else, that contributes to all this. The number of people who never read as much as a daily newspaper, let alone serious magazines or books, is increasing all the time. And the more people take all their information and entertainment from electronic media, the more they're immersed in a world where everything, including language, must be reduced to the lowest common denominator. And the more that happens the more the traditional media must be dumbed down if they want to retain any readership at all.

When I was working as a reporter, I was told I had to restrict my vocabulary to an eighth grade level. Today I suspect it's even lower -- the average paper nowadays reminds me of the sort of thing I was seeing in My Weekly Reader when I was nine.

Thank you! I've had many a debate with my roommate, how we both agree that the cause of many grammar-challenged people today are that way because of lack of reading. Even the reading programs in high school today are essentially meant for brain-dead individuals. I'm sorry, Harry Potter doesn't consitute as educational reading. Whatever happened to the 18th century literature I had to read? The Go-Between? Charles Dickens? Attention Deficit Disorder if a FICTIONAL DISEASE. It didn't exist until recently, it's nothing more than easing the worry of parents who have children who are behind for their age. No doctor or parent can convince me otherwise (not to pull a Tom Cruise or anything). I've studied psychology and research enough to know the truth. Give a kid a book and no child will be left behind.

 

[Etienne]

Classic, I agree with you about this!!

 

[skinnychik]

Walking through a door: "This door is so heavy."

Waiting at the cross walk: "This is the longest light."

Ordering food: "I have to pay for extra cheese, that's silly."

I mean it never ends! Can someone just point out to people that nitpicking over things that you will forget in 5 seconds is exhausting? \

Omigod (that's for you, JamesPowers) your rants make me laugh, Lady Day!

RedShoesGirl- Why does it strike me as strange that people were once so honest? I love the anecdote, but I can't help but think that many modern fifteen-year-olds would lie without batting an eyelash.

Posting on these threads is very intimidating. It makes me run it through SpellCheck, at least.

 

[skinnychik]

Thank you! I've had many a debate with my roommate, how we both agree that the cause of many grammar-challenged people today are that way because of lack of reading. Even the reading programs in high school today are essentially meant for brain-dead individuals. I'm sorry, Harry Potter doesn't consitute as educational reading. Whatever happened to the 18th century literature I had to read? The Go-Between? Charles Dickens? Attention Deficit Disorder if a FICTIONAL DISEASE. It didn't exist until recently, it's nothing more than easing the worry of parents who have children who are behind for their age. No doctor or parent can convince me otherwise (not to pull a Tom Cruise or anything). I've studied psychology and research enough to know the truth. Give a kid a book and no child will be left behind.

Hmm, I prefer to call it Discipline Deficit Disorder, which gets me into trouble in faculty meetings and IEP staffings. Attention spans must be exercised if they are expected to function. A hearty AMEN to your rant.

 

[ideaguy]

I find the phrase "grammar nazi" quite unsettling. If we are to make our language skills easier to use without feeling pedantic, why introduce an horrific description that could easily offend a fair amount of readers and skew the intention of the grammarian, and bring what amounts to a four-letter word into the fray?
This is not as pointed as may seemingly appear: Seinfeld's "soup nazi" is another example of backhanding cultural value systems, and feed the lack of respect for both reader and writer. Since we are still a culture that relies on the oral tradition of relaying historical fact or fiction, using that particular word to emphasize a point may be as bad form as using profanity or racial epithets.
In short, words hit like a fist-and there's plenty of kids ready to learn how to offend at the drop of a hat.

 

[Willi_Goat]

I know how to write and speak properly; English was always my best subject in school. I very much like to speak colloquially, though. I like to throw in a few 'them things' and 'ain'ts' in once in a while for a more Golden Age flavour.

It does drive me batty when people throw in an apostrophe at the end of every word ending in 's'. That's the one that bugs (bothers ) me most.

I imagine kids growing up with text messenging are going to seem outright retarded (as we used to say in the good o' days before political correctness) in later life.

An 's' item that bothers me is the constant adding of one at the end of words needlessly, mainly for store names. "I'm going to the Wal-marts, I'm going to the Krogers, etc." 'The' seems to be a word that has to be added before the store name as well.

 

[skinnychik]

Grammar Nazi

Fair enough. Your right that it packs a certain shock value that is close to profanity. I wonder it it is connected to the (modern?) need to exaggerate to make a point, as though more accurate words/phrases wouldn't be interesting enough for conversation.

I've used the term on several occasions, but I think I'll refrain now.

 

[book_lover]

Reading forums (fora?) certainly highlights a lot of problems. I see so many people who went to the shop and "brought" a new dress :rage: Although I have to say, I do TRY to be patient about this sort of thing. After all, people are educated to different levels, and have different levels of intelligence. Live and let live!

(oooh although one last bugbear - people who can't for the life of them get the "s" onto the beginning of "specific" - I'm always wondering what the hell the Pacific has got to do with it!)

 

[Etienne]

ideaguy, you expressed your thoughts with clarity, insight and solid reasoning! Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The term in question is not one I have used but your observations will make me even more thoughtful about any words I use.

 

[RadioHead]

An 's' item that bothers me is the constant adding of one at the end of words needlessly,

Oh, golly! Never go to Newfoundland, then. "I wants a beer", "I needs to sleep", etc. Drives me nuts! Luckily... I don't have to hear it too often.

"RadioHead"

 

[RadioHead]

Don't get me staahted.

biggest mistake that newscasters make "under $12 or under 500 people"

it is "less than"

under refers to a place — "under the bed".

Also, it's "fewer than 500 people".

 

[jamespowers]

Wossamatta U? lol

Samattchewboy?

Regards,

J

 

[Air Boss]

Technoachrophobia...

or the fear of being in a room of Government engineers. There is more techno-babble than you hear on Star Trek and Stargate combined plus the ever present acronyms. My favorites are the Navy engineers (no offense meant) they have the greatest acronyms and there is usually at least one that will get my warped mind going.

 

[DancingSweetie]

I have noticed that way too many people still do not know the difference between there, their, and they're, your and you're, to and too. I actually received an advertisement in the mail from a car dealership that said "your invited".
It also drives me crazy when people say "sherbert" instead of "sherbet".

 

[Lady Day]

Also . . .

I think we will forever be plagued by the 'who' vs 'whom' placement.

LD

 

[Senator Jack]

'Whom' is pretty much dead, isn't it? And then when people do use it to sound erudite, they get it wrong anyway.

Ex. 'I'd like to talk to whomever is in charge.'

No, it's 'whoever' is in charge. I am in charge. He is in charge. She is charge. It's not 'me is in charge' or 'him is in charge,' is it?

And who the devil came up with 'Whom shall I say is calling?'


Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[RadioHead]

'Whom' is pretty much dead, isn't it? And then when people do use it to sound erudite, they get it wrong anyway.

Ex. 'I'd like to talk to whomever is in charge.'

No, it's 'whoever' is in charge.

Gosh. I really don't like to disagree with someone as respected/knowledgeable/cool-looking as YOU, (and I am being neither facetious nor sarcastic) Senator Jack, but...

"Whom", whether or not you like it, is grammatically correct when it is used as the object in a sentence. Oh, I do agree that many "rules" of grammar are outdated (who cares about gerunds these days?) and should be scrapped, but I do say- when I answer the telephone at work- "To whom do you wish to speak?" instead of "Who do you want to talk to?"... which is incorrect on at least two levels.

"RadioHead"

(and please don't replace the "Radio" with something else... )

 

[Senator Jack]

To whom - yes, correct, as in 'I'd like to speak to him.' Whom replaces him.

BUT,

'Whom shall I say is calling' implies the answer 'He is calling.' Not 'Him is calling."

Thus, 'Who shall I say is calling?' - 'He is calling.'

I'll agree, 'Whom shall I say...' idiomatically sounds better, but if people want to ditch 'Whom' altogether, then just be done with it and don't bother withe hyper-urbanisms.

Moving on, let's look at a the noun phrase example: 'I'd like to see whomever/whoever is in charge.'

'Who is in charge?' He is - not him. Whoever is in charge is a complete noun phrase and not a direct object.

Consulting Fowler's, legitimate uses of 'who', I find, are listed, many of which I don't cotton to. (ending with a prep - no comments please) Ex. 'Who do you think I mean?' To me, that's wrong, but Fowler gives the thumbs up.

Lifelong grammarians are split on this, so I'm certainly not going to claim final authority. I'm still trying to figure out 'may' and 'might'. More on that later.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Lady Day]

Oh, I started a monster :eusa_doh:

LD