My biggest problem with Typos are Grammer are Spelling and Grammer Nazi's geez... some of us are not anal retentive and are content to let the jist of the text overshadowing something simple like grammer or spelling, as long as I can tell what it means I don't sweat it, or bash anyone for it...so that said... if you are a stickler for these things...TEACH ENGLISH... don't flame people on message boards or in chatrooms...
There was a time when I agreed with you. One little mistake is forgivable, as long as the intended meaning is clear. The problem is that some people seem incapable of typing a single sentence correctly.
Seriously, there were times when I couldn't understand what a co-worker typed, so I went to that co-worker and asked what his/her writing meant, and that co-worker COULDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HIS OR HER OWN WRITING. THAT CO-WORKER WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT HIS OR HER OWN NOTES TO UNDERSTAND HIS OR HER OWN POINT! How do people like that expect anyone ELSE to understand their writing?
This is why we need to make people aware of the rules of English. We need to cut down on these mistakes as much as possible. I often break grammar rules deliberately when I feel that doing so helps to make a point somehow, but there's a reason why grammar rules exist.
Seriously, there were times when I couldn't understand what a co-worker typed, so I went to that co-worker and asked what his/her writing meant, and that co-worker COULDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HIS OR HER OWN WRITING.
There's been a couple times, on this board and others, when I felt like replying to someone, "I can't really argue with you. Mostly because I can't figure out what you're trying to say."
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
..as long as I can tell what it means I don't sweat it, or bash anyone for it...so that said... if you are a stickler for these things...TEACH ENGLISH...
Some of us do. Having said that, I've learned some things in this discussion, and I'd warrant most other people have, as well. Since no particular perpetrator was singled out for any particular knife wound on Calliope, I think the charge of flaming is baseless.
..as long as I can tell what it means I don't sweat it, or bash anyone for it...so that said... if you are a stickler for these things...TEACH ENGLISH...Some of us do.
And some of us are working on it ;)
Thanks, Chris. I'm one of the sticklers who believes that common usage should not become correct usage. If we begin using different words interchangeably, we dilute the language and fail to convey information. "I'm nauseated" and "I'm nauseous" should not mean the same thing, nor should they be ambiguous. [/codger]
Starting when? Is there a specific date at which the language was correct and we are not to deviate from it after that point? Also we had best clarify whose version of English will be the gold standard. I vote for the Brits as they has a strong historical claim.
Some of us do. Having said that, I've learned some things in this discussion, and I'd warrant most other people have, as well.
I know that I have.
If you don't want to read a discussion about typographical errors and grammatical mistakes, then I'd say that this thread's title should immediately tell you not to click on it.
For words about "nausea", it's helpful to refer to the clearer subject of "poison":
to nauseate::to poison
nauseous::poisonous
nauseated::poisoned
With all deference to your mastery of English, which is by far beyond my own*, I actually disagree with your take on the proper usage of "nauseous" vs. "nauseated", using the analogy of "poison~".
'Nauseous' should mean 'having the properties of nausea'. Which I have no problem applying to the person throwing up after food poisoning, etc, in other words "I am nauseous/ I feel nauseous" is fine to use synonymously with "I am nauseated/ I feel nauseated" (the latter extendable to I am nauseated BY..").
Nausea and poison aren't the perfect 1:1 comparison because nausea is a 'lived' condition, while poison is a substance (whose effect can be nausea, thus poison as verb can approximate nauseate as a verb). As a lived condition, 'nausea/nauseous' can be compared to 'fury/furious', IMHO.
* For one, I hate not knowing the formal names for English grammar structures just because it's convenient when studying other languages.
That's not a bad analogy. So, the analogue to nauseated would be furied?
Well, I would say "I was ENRAGED by..." rather than that (or the idiom "fired up by" would seem to match), but on a grammatic basis, that seems pretty plausible in an altenate universe manifestation of the English language. (like how English takes many forms wherever it is used, e.g. Jamaican vs. US English. The Jamaican guy who worked at the gym I went to found my turn of phrase "I popped [was popping] in/by" (quick visit) to be HILARIOUS)
Re; Nauseous, it seems a stretch to use any other way: Are you really going to say that questionable-rep seafood restaurant's food is "nauseous"? I might say "nauseating" but not "nauseous" for that case. That comes back to that "nausea" is a "lived" noun.
The one that infuriates me the most is oft heard from my friends, family, and most recently, TV and Movies. While not grammar related, it is the phrase, "I could care less." The correct phrase is "I could NOT care less." The first implies that while your feelings are minimal, they still exist. The second conveys the stance that you are completely indifferent to the subject matter. It is the rock bottom of your "ability to care." When people use this phrase, they intend the latter, but often say the former. Drives me mad....
(prepares for someone to use phrase incorrectly to denote feelings toward thread subject...let em fly)
The one that infuriates me the most is oft heard from my friends, family, and most recently, TV and Movies. While not grammar related, it is the phrase, "I could care less."
Sure, but 'irrational' usage of a double negative (which 'could care less' essentially counts as) is HUGELY common, in Spanish as well. It's so well understood that usage of the form serves as a good emphasis, at least that's my take on it. :-)
"I could care less" should also probably be understood as a contraction of a longer phrase, e.g. "I could care less if [blatantly implausible situation]" -> It's implausible I could care less.
The one that infuriates me the most is oft heard from my friends, family, and most recently, TV and Movies. While not grammar related, it is the phrase, "I could care less."Sure, but 'irrational' usage of a double negative (which 'could care less' essentially counts as) is HUGELY common, in Spanish as well. It's so well understood that usage of the form serves as a good emphasis, at least that's my take on it. :-)
Quite right, totally common, but still a mistake. It is one thing if the double negative was intended, but in this case, I view it as simply a result of mishearing the original correct phrase. Correct on the Spanish as well, but many things do not translate well...I should know, I live in Spain. Carne does not always mean beef...something I learned to my eternal gastrointestinal regret.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
The one that infuriates me the most is oft heard from my friends, family, and most recently, TV and Movies. While not grammar related, it is the phrase, "I could care less."
I always thought that was correct, and just a contraction of "I could care less... but not much!"
/me ducks and covers
The one that infuriates me the most is oft heard from my friends, family, and most recently, TV and Movies. While not grammar related, it is the phrase, "I could care less." The correct phrase is "I could NOT care less." The first implies that while your feelings are minimal, they still exist. The second conveys the stance that you are completely indifferent to the subject matter. It is the rock bottom of your "ability to care." When people use this phrase, they intend the latter, but often say the former. Drives me mad....
This is my big one as well. I've gotten into the habit of saying "Great! That means you'll (whatever I wanted)." Then when they protest I get to explain why they used the phrase wrong and how to fix it. :P
why they used the phrase wrong
This is my wife's pet grammar peeve -- use of adjectives as adverbs, and the dumping of adverbs from the language. She once got in a bunch of hot water for sending out a mass email calling out her boss -- he had just published the phrase "this job went flawless!" in the company newsletter.
She loves it when I walk around the house singing "Lolly's! Lolly's! Lolly's! Get your adverbs here! Quickly! Quickly! Quickly! Get your adverbs here!"
I'm not sure on the correctness either way, but I hate hearing "near miss." Now if it was really a near miss, then you still got hit, right? It should be a "near hit," even if that sounds weird.
She loves it when I walk around the house singing "Lolly's! Lolly's! Lolly's! Get your adverbs here! Quickly! Quickly! Quickly! Get your adverbs here!"
Sadly, I remember the basic tune and that part of the song, but absolutely nothing else from that episode :P
Yep, back on page 2:
Irregardless.
That one makes me cringe and wring my hands (in lieu of necks).
I'm not sure on the correctness either way, but I hate hearing "near miss." Now if it was really a near miss, then you still got hit, right? It should be a "near hit," even if that sounds weird.
A miss that was near [to you/ to hitting]?
Anyone mention "irregardless" yet? In theory it would mean the opposite of "regardless" yet people use the two as though they are the same.
I find the use of the phrase 'self conscious' to be almost comically the opposite of how I imagine it's meaning should be. The original phrase should be 'self un-conscious' since it un-consciously accepts external definitions of identity and value, while being conscious of self would mean being able to consciously observe the self. :-)
Since this thread is expanding to include more than grammatical mistakes and misspellings, what about "almost more than?"
"It was almost more than she could bear."
GAAHHH!
It was almost as much as she could bear, or it was exactly as much as she could bear, or it was more than she could bear. It must be one of those three. Which is it? Pick one!!!
|
My biggest problem with Typos are Grammer are Spelling and Grammer Nazi's geez... some of us are not anal retentive and are content to let the jist of the text overshadowing something simple like grammer or spelling, as long as I can tell what it means I don't sweat it, or bash anyone for it...so that said... if you are a stickler for these things...TEACH ENGLISH... don't flame people on message boards or in chatrooms...There was a time when I agreed with you. One little mistake is forgivable, as long as the intended meaning is clear. The problem is that some people seem incapable of typing a single sentence correctly.
Seriously, there were times when I couldn't understand what a co-worker typed, so I went to that co-worker and asked what his/her writing meant, and that co-worker COULDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HIS OR HER OWN WRITING. THAT CO-WORKER WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT HIS OR HER OWN NOTES TO UNDERSTAND HIS OR HER OWN POINT! How do people like that expect anyone ELSE to understand their writing?
This is why we need to make people aware of the rules of English. We need to cut down on these mistakes as much as possible. I often break grammar rules deliberately when I feel that doing so helps to make a point somehow, but there's a reason why grammar rules exist.
+1 and deflection bonus! When we lose grammar we lose the language! I ignore typos that are obviously mistakes, but if I cannot even understand a point being made because the spelling and grammar are so lamentably awful, I simply ignore the post and assume the writer is probably as bright as a box of rocks. I respect people to whom English is a second language because at least they make an effort to simply state what they mean. You can tell the difference!
There is no excuse for terrible grammar. I'm no grammarian, and I'm sure people could pick apart my posts with ease. But I think the majority of time my posts are readable, if often rather lengthy.
Drives me nuts when people use "literally" to mean figuratively.
"I literally died!"
"Oh? Was there a light? And how's old St. Pete?"
That one bugs me especially because "literally" is supposedly indicating that you are NOT using metaphor, and that the event in question actually did occur. Misuse of it is therefore almost like a bald-faced lie.
How about grammatically correct structures that should be wrong?
Ever think about "a friend of mine" or "a friend of his"? Mine and his aren't nouns, so how can they be objects of the preposition? Shouldn't we say "He's a friend of me" or "She's a friend of him"?
|
How about grammatically correct structures that should be wrong?
Ever think about "a friend of mine" or "a friend of his"? Mine and his aren't nouns, so how can they be objects of the preposition? Shouldn't we say "He's a friend of me" or "She's a friend of him"?
Well, it can function as a noun, as in "Your guess is as good as mine" or "Your car is blue, but mine is red." I'm not convinced, however, that that usage can be applied to "a friend of mine." Very interesting, and it makes me want to look further...
|
|
Thanks, Chris. I'm one of the sticklers who believes that common usage should not become correct usage. If we begin using different words interchangeably, we dilute the language and fail to convey information. "I'm nauseated" and "I'm nauseous" should not mean the same thing, nor should they be ambiguous. [/codger]Starting when? Is there a specific date at which the language was correct and we are not to deviate from it after that point? Also we had best clarify whose version of English will be the gold standard. I vote for the Brits as they has a strong historical claim.
I'd possibly agree with you here, but being a Brit I am biased. My chief concern with certain American English words is that they did come from a particular etymological root. Example in question is the American word "center" which on the surface seems fine and easily pronounceable was derived from the Latin word centrum. Now working from the stem centr we derive other variations of the same word such as central, concentric,
but we do not say centeral or concenteric. There are numerous words bastardized in this way in American English, much of which came from an angry British hating Noah Webster who went out of his way to change the language for Americans. I can understand why Mr Webster hated the Brits so much in his day, but to destroy a good part of a language's roots because of this is kind of silly.Many Americans argue that Webster simplified the language. He did and he didn't. There are plenty of American spellings that don't make an ounce of sense as there are with UK English words. I think the worst mistake he made was to do away with diphthongs, vowel pairings that when said together quickly provide a completely new sound. In fact we've actually lost a lot of the old sounds because of this.
The word feud is a prime example of this loss of spoken sound. We pronounce feud as we would pronounce "few" with a "d" added to the end.
In actual fact the sound for that word was originally completely different. If we say e (not "ee" but simply eH) and u (not "yoo" but uH] together very quickly we get a sound "ewuH". When we apply this diphthong to our word feud it sounds a lot different.
Languages certainly change, and vernacular usage like "texting" word/accronyms will always appear and disappear with changes in society. This is what dialects are about; an interesting study in itself. But I would be very sad to lose the basis of English grammar, just because people speak it differently and in different places. There should always be a standard, and deviations though fine should not be taught as language gospel, otherwise we might end up losing the entire language that binds us together.
|
|
The one that infuriates me the most is oft heard from my friends, family, and most recently, TV and Movies. While not grammar related, it is the phrase, "I could care less." The correct phrase is "I could NOT care less." The first implies that while your feelings are minimal, they still exist. The second conveys the stance that you are completely indifferent to the subject matter. It is the rock bottom of your "ability to care." When people use this phrase, they intend the latter, but often say the former. Drives me mad....
(prepares for someone to use phrase incorrectly to denote feelings toward thread subject...let em fly)
You're so right, but its common usage over here ;) It's like when someone says to a policeman "I never did nothing!" Which by its very wording means you did something.
|
Drives me nuts when people use "literally" to mean figuratively.
"I literally died!"
"Oh? Was there a light? And how's old St. Pete?"That one bugs me especially because "literally" is supposedly indicating that you are NOT using metaphor, and that the event in question actually did occur. Misuse of it is therefore almost like a bald-faced lie.
"I'm literally in the middle of nowhere." I've often wondered where "nowhere" was.
|
|
There is, of course, punctuation issues. Quotations are a big one for me -- but more in real publications than on a messageboard. Quotations should be used to either quote someone (he said "go to the store") or to say that something isn't what you are saying it is (Sebastian is "nice"). So when I see a sign that says -- The "Best" Seafood in Town -- I'm not sure what that means.
There is, of course, punctuation issues.
There are also verb/noun agreement issues. :P
There is, of course, punctuation issues.There are also verb/noun agreement issues. :PThat too. (Tempted to change the original post. I changed the sentence three times and still didn't get it right.)
EDIT: And, hey -- I've got an excuse. I'm a Math major.
You KNOW people just wait for you to make any sort of error, don't you? :)
|
|
You KNOW people just wait for you to make any sort of error, don't you? :)There is, of course, punctuation issues.There are also verb/noun agreement issues. :PThat too. (Tempted to change the original post. I changed the sentence three times and still didn't get it right.)
EDIT: And, hey -- I've got an excuse. I'm a Math major.
I expect nothing less. ;-)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Drives me nuts when people use "literally" to mean figuratively.
"I literally died!"
"Oh? Was there a light? And how's old St. Pete?"That one bugs me especially because "literally" is supposedly indicating that you are NOT using metaphor, and that the event in question actually did occur. Misuse of it is therefore almost like a bald-faced lie.
This. It's particularly annoying because people use it to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means. It'd be like saying "gosh, it was so sunny out, it was pitch black."
People who misuse literally receive 2d6 permanent idiot points in my book.
Chief Technical Officer
|
There is, of course, punctuation issues. Quotations are a big one for me -- but more in real publications than on a messageboard. Quotations should be used to either quote someone (he said "go to the store") or to say that something isn't what you are saying it is (Sebastian is "nice"). So when I see a sign that says -- The "Best" Seafood in Town -- I'm not sure what that means.
I assume that the sign is quoting the owner—and, most likely, only the owner, so I move on.
|
|
There is, of course, punctuation issues. Quotations are a big one for me -- but more in real publications than on a messageboard. Quotations should be used to either quote someone (he said "go to the store") or to say that something isn't what you are saying it is (Sebastian is "nice"). So when I see a sign that says -- The "Best" Seafood in Town -- I'm not sure what that means.I assume that the sign is quoting the owner—and, most likely, only the owner, so I move on.
I'm afraid that the quote being used was taken out of context. Way out of context.
"Fun" Quotation Blog
Linked
That is full of win."Fun" Quotation Blog:
http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/
... and full of Fail. {head a'splode}
Don't even start me on "made of win" and "full of fail" and their ilk.... you'll be on The List.
Don't even start me on "made of win" and "full of fail" and their ilk.... you'll be on The List.
I'm already on Sebastian's list... what's one more? ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Beastiary NO,NO,NO,NO,NO!
It is BESTiary! Paizo got it right on the cover of the book. Just go look at it!
I'm guilty of confusing thieves with cosmetics, but that's a typing error, not a genuine spelling
error. I'm an excellent speller, but a mediocre typist.
Heh, I spelled it 'beastiary' for the longest time because that made sense to me. "BEAST-e-airy" is how I pronounced it. the way it's spelled, it looks like it's pronounced 'BEST-e-airy'
Heh, I spelled it 'beastiary' for the longest time because that made sense to me. "BEAST-e-airy" is how I pronounced it. the way it's spelled, it looks like it's pronounced 'BEST-e-airy'