Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
-
- 500 post plus club
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:59 pm
- Location: eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
I almost forgot the case of using "of" instead of "have" ...
as in, "I could of gone to that movie."
ack!!!
as in, "I could of gone to that movie."
ack!!!
formerly known as "Deanna" on UDBB -- and prior to that, as "DJD".
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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
The aim of argument or of discussion should not be victory, but progress. ~ Joseph Joubert
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1126
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:26 am
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Oh dear! Grammar IS hard. Thanks for the correction Capstone.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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.
Proud Rubenesquestrian
- Chisamba
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 4532
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:33 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
I happen to be a proponent of the Oxford comma.
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
As are all people of refinement and culture.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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!!
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
Just for fun....
What is wrong with this sentence?
I have never been to Paris.
What is wrong with this sentence?
I have never been to Paris.
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
DD2 wrote:Just for fun....
What is wrong with this sentence?
I have never been to Paris.
Nothing.
http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/ ... ready-yet/
http://speakspeak.com/resources/english ... n-sentence
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/educat ... t-and-more
-
- 500 post plus club
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:20 pm
- Location: NW Michigan
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
But I've been to Oklahoma
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
I come from Alabama with a banjo on my knee.
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
- Location: San Jose, CA
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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.
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:42 am
- Location: PNW, just outside Emerald City
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
LOL, good one Boots!
The calmer I am, the stronger I am.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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
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
-
- Novice
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:21 pm
- Location: South Texas
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
"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.
Now I understand. You are talking about Englisn; a language not commonly spoken. With weird rules.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
"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
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
Be , along with meaning "am" also means to occupy a place or position
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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.
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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.
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
Please stop using "purposefully" when you mean "purposely." You sound silly.
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:06 pm
- Location: Tennessee
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
And when did "hurtful" come about?
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
According to Merriam-Webster, sometime in 1526.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hurtful
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hurtful
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:06 pm
- Location: Tennessee
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
KathyK wrote:According to Merriam-Webster, sometime in 1526.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hurtful
Well, I always thought I was behind times and this proves it!
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:16 pm
- Location: Northern Illinois
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
KathyK wrote:Please stop using "purposefully" when you mean "purposely." You sound silly.
I cannot like this enough.
- ironbessflint
- Greenie
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:21 pm
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
I saw this gem over the weekend:
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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.
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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.
-
- 500 post plus club
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:20 pm
- Location: NW Michigan
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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
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.
-
- 500 post plus club
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:50 pm
- Location: Texas, The Lone Star State!
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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?
"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
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!!
"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
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
Last edited by capstone on Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:13 pm
- Location: New York, instead of New England
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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
Astral wrote:"Horn in on." WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
Agree.
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
capstone wrote: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? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in
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
KathyK wrote:capstone wrote: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? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in
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/
Last edited by capstone on Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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%20in
It's been documented in use for over a century.
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
KathyK wrote: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%20in
It's been documented in use for over a century.
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?
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:13 pm
- Location: New York, instead of New England
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
KathyK wrote: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%20in
It's been documented in use for over a century.
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!
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
- Location: San Jose, CA
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
capstone wrote:KathyK wrote:capstone wrote:Agree.
To horn in is to push your way into something. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horn%20in
It's been documented in use for over a century.
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
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.
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
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
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.
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:13 pm
- Location: New York, instead of New England
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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...
Not a word. In any way.
Everyone complains about autocorrect, yet things like that seem common...
-
- Novice
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:21 pm
- Location: South Texas
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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.
-
- Herd Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:06 pm
- Location: Tennessee
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
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.
-
- Bringing Life to the DDBB
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
- Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio
Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves
FlyingLily wrote:Not exactly a grammatical peeve; more like a "WTH are they teaching in school in Texas?!"
Creationism.
Return to “The Observation Lounge/ Cookbook Forum even Hot Topics”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 291 guests