Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1krazy4katz
I have worked so hard to correct these errors all my life and now they don't matter?
http://theweek.com/article/index/240882/7-bogus-grammar-errors-you-dont-need-to-...
http://theweek.com/article/index/240882/7-bogus-grammar-errors-you-dont-need-to-...
3abbottthomas
I go with most of Yagoda's points about the arbitrary nature of many grammatical rules but some of the list of words that can be used to mean something that they weren't meant to mean (decimate, etc) do grate.
He writes (It has become popular recently to follow sentence-opening conjunctions with a comma, for example, "But, we got there too late for the early-bird special." That is indeed wrong. No comma.). That makes me think of a widespread, and growing, usage which drives me to distraction, starting replies to any question with "So,........" As spoken the word is always followed by a comma-like pause before the answer is given.
He writes (It has become popular recently to follow sentence-opening conjunctions with a comma, for example, "But, we got there too late for the early-bird special." That is indeed wrong. No comma.). That makes me think of a widespread, and growing, usage which drives me to distraction, starting replies to any question with "So,........" As spoken the word is always followed by a comma-like pause before the answer is given.
4lilithcat
> 3
That use of "so" drives me to distraction as well. Lately, there's been an addition that makes it worse. I hear it often in radio interviews. The interviewee is asked a question, and responds with, "Sure. So, . . ."
That use of "so" drives me to distraction as well. Lately, there's been an addition that makes it worse. I hear it often in radio interviews. The interviewee is asked a question, and responds with, "Sure. So, . . ."
5PossMan
>3 abbottthomas:: I used to agree with you about "decimate" but under the influence of Oliver Kamm (who writes "The Pedant" column in The (London) Times each Saturday) I've come to accept that it now usually means something else. Another of his recent columns was on the expression "the hoi polloi" and those who object to the "the".
7krazy4katz
As a scientist, I just can't use "data" as a collective noun. No! Impossible! Also, I spend so much time correcting my thats and whiches; it seems a shame to let that go too.
8barney67
I disagree that because a usage becomes popular it therefore correct. That's silly.
Decimate, for example, is such a dumb word anyway. I never use it because I never have reason to describe when something has been destroyed by a tenth. But I don't think that the definition should be changed simply because some people use it wrong or can't come up with an alternative when they want to describe something has been destroyed. People probably use it because they think it is less common and therefore more dramatic. It is less common—because, as I said, there is often little demand for it.
I think "annihilate" sounds dramatic (Latin annihilatus "reduced to nothing") and "decimate" sounds dull, with that institutional "-ate" at the end, and "deci" evoking math.
As usual, it is the press, who ought to know better, that causes these distortions, perhaps because of their love of melodrama and their habit to taking themselves and what they do Very Seriously. They rationalize their low income by inflating their purpose.
On the other hand, many of his comments are common sense, or perhaps they are matters which are subjective and best decided by ear, assuming the writer, like a good musician, has developed a good ear for such matters as when a split infinitive is okay, or beginning a sentence with a And or But, or ending a sentence with a preposition. None of these matters are serious enough to lead to a duel, but then I don't recall anyone claiming that they were, esp. when there are more egregious errors to correct.
Decimate, for example, is such a dumb word anyway. I never use it because I never have reason to describe when something has been destroyed by a tenth. But I don't think that the definition should be changed simply because some people use it wrong or can't come up with an alternative when they want to describe something has been destroyed. People probably use it because they think it is less common and therefore more dramatic. It is less common—because, as I said, there is often little demand for it.
I think "annihilate" sounds dramatic (Latin annihilatus "reduced to nothing") and "decimate" sounds dull, with that institutional "-ate" at the end, and "deci" evoking math.
As usual, it is the press, who ought to know better, that causes these distortions, perhaps because of their love of melodrama and their habit to taking themselves and what they do Very Seriously. They rationalize their low income by inflating their purpose.
On the other hand, many of his comments are common sense, or perhaps they are matters which are subjective and best decided by ear, assuming the writer, like a good musician, has developed a good ear for such matters as when a split infinitive is okay, or beginning a sentence with a And or But, or ending a sentence with a preposition. None of these matters are serious enough to lead to a duel, but then I don't recall anyone claiming that they were, esp. when there are more egregious errors to correct.
9thorold
Cynically, I would be inclined to say that "don't let the pedants grind you down" pieces are just as useful as "our culture is going to the dogs": if you have to write a column a couple of weeks ahead of time because you're going on holiday, you need a topic that always looks fresh and won't go out of date. When of course it's just common sense, and the theme is one that was already old decades before the birth of the Churchill anecdote...
My old Greek teacher used to say "'the οἱ πολλοί' is a solecism, except in Iolanthe". That seems to be a good rule of thumb. (He was also the first person from whom I heard the Churchill anecdote, as it happens.)
My old Greek teacher used to say "'the οἱ πολλοί' is a solecism, except in Iolanthe". That seems to be a good rule of thumb. (He was also the first person from whom I heard the Churchill anecdote, as it happens.)
10reading_fox
>4 lilithcat: or the "Yeah, but no" - indicating that the speaker has heard the question, understands it, but disagrees. However it does sound annoying.
Of course I'm thoroughly in the popularity does indeed make it correct camp, and shouldn't really by in this group. But I am. The trouble is that it is so hard to find prepositions to end sentences with. I have to boldly go and make my own.
Most grammar rules are mere guidelines, and shouldn't be slavishly adhered to. They can be freely decimated. But not annihilated, because just sometimes they do provide clarity of expression. And it is important to remember those exceptions. However usually such sentences are best re-written anyway.
Of course I'm thoroughly in the popularity does indeed make it correct camp, and shouldn't really by in this group. But I am. The trouble is that it is so hard to find prepositions to end sentences with. I have to boldly go and make my own.
Most grammar rules are mere guidelines, and shouldn't be slavishly adhered to. They can be freely decimated. But not annihilated, because just sometimes they do provide clarity of expression. And it is important to remember those exceptions. However usually such sentences are best re-written anyway.
11thorold
>10 reading_fox: ...popularity does indeed make it correct camp
Not necessarily. Think about Ronald Firbank. Camp as a row of tents, eternally popular among the ten people who've heard of him, but you could scarcely call his work correct.
Not necessarily. Think about Ronald Firbank. Camp as a row of tents, eternally popular among the ten people who've heard of him, but you could scarcely call his work correct.
