Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   They strive to liberate the English language from usage that is detrimental to its clarity. For instance, some people don't know that "it's" is short for "it is," but it's   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

254 clicks; posted to Discussion » on 06 Oct 2022 at 12:35 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



41 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-10-06 12:45:15 PM  
People should literally be making less grammar mistakes.
 
2022-10-06 12:55:30 PM  

Copperbelly watersnake: People should literally be making less grammar mistakes.


"Literally" has not literally meant "literally" for literally centuries.

"Literally" in the hyperbolic usage has been around since the late 17th century. It's has been used this way by numerous respected and/or popular authors including F. Scott Fitzgerald ("He literally glowed"), James Joyce ("Lily, the caretaker's daughter, was literally run off her feet"), W. M. Thackeray ("I literally blazed with wit"), Charlotte Brontë ("she took me to herself, and proceeded literally to suffocate me with her unrestrained spirits"), Mark Twain ("literally rolling in wealth"), and Charles Dickens ("'Lift him out,' said Squeers, after he had literally feasted his eyes, in silence, upon the culprit").

Merriam-Webster, OED, Collins, and American Heritage dictionary also agree.

So if you think you are a greater authority on "correct" English than that, go for it.
 
2022-10-06 12:56:25 PM  
I'm all in favor of correct English grammar. All I need is for somebody to tell me where and when that English was spoken. Hint: the answer is not your seventh grade English class.
 
2022-10-06 12:57:30 PM  
That Mitchell and Webb Look - Grammar Nazi
Youtube qmVnr7rsWrE
 
2022-10-06 1:02:06 PM  

Copperbelly watersnake: People should literally be making less grammar mistakes.


Fewer,
Fuehrer.
 
2022-10-06 1:14:00 PM  

HugeMistake: Copperbelly watersnake: People should literally be making less grammar mistakes.

"Literally" has not literally meant "literally" for literally centuries.

"Literally" in the hyperbolic usage has been around since the late 17th century. It's has been used this way by numerous respected and/or popular authors including F. Scott Fitzgerald ("He literally glowed"), James Joyce ("Lily, the caretaker's daughter, was literally run off her feet"), W. M. Thackeray ("I literally blazed with wit"), Charlotte Brontë ("she took me to herself, and proceeded literally to suffocate me with her unrestrained spirits"), Mark Twain ("literally rolling in wealth"), and Charles Dickens ("'Lift him out,' said Squeers, after he had literally feasted his eyes, in silence, upon the culprit").

Merriam-Webster, OED, Collins, and American Heritage dictionary also agree.

So if you think you are a greater authority on "correct" English than that, go for it.


Which is fine, as long as it retains its literal meaning and thus can actually be used for poetic or dramatic effect.

When it just means "figuratively" and there is no word for "literally" any longer, then I've got beef.

Language evolves, sure.  But that evolution is guided by the people that use it.  It's an agreement.  It's not something that just happens to us, or that is imposed upon us.

I think a general principle of: "Evolution that expands the flexibility and versatility of the language is great.  evolution that reduces same is bad.  Evolution that does neither is fine."

There is also a big difference between grammar, diction and convention.
 
2022-10-06 1:21:40 PM  

HugeMistake: Copperbelly watersnake: People should literally be making less grammar mistakes.

"Literally" has not literally meant "literally" for literally centuries.

"Literally" in the hyperbolic usage has been around since the late 17th century. It's has been used this way by numerous respected and/or popular authors including F. Scott Fitzgerald ("He literally glowed"), James Joyce ("Lily, the caretaker's daughter, was literally run off her feet"), W. M. Thackeray ("I literally blazed with wit"), Charlotte Brontë ("she took me to herself, and proceeded literally to suffocate me with her unrestrained spirits"), Mark Twain ("literally rolling in wealth"), and Charles Dickens ("'Lift him out,' said Squeers, after he had literally feasted his eyes, in silence, upon the culprit").

Merriam-Webster, OED, Collins, and American Heritage dictionary also agree.

So if you think you are a greater authority on "correct" English than that, go for it.


Most of those are literally the right use of the word.
Glowing is what sweaty people do when the light refracts off the water on their skin.
The caretaker was overcome and fell down.
"Unrestrained spirits" is slang for huge tits.  She gave him a big hug and he couldn't breath because she was smashing her huge tits in his face.
The guy rolling in wealth was Scrooge McDucking with expensive things all around.
 
2022-10-06 1:38:06 PM  
The only good Nazi is a grammar Nazi.

/Ja, ich bin ein Grammarnazi
 
2022-10-06 2:06:47 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-06 2:13:35 PM  
Wittgenstein was a beery swine.
 
2022-10-06 2:15:46 PM  
One would think that an organization dedicated to the preservation of language would know what an idiom is.
 
2022-10-06 2:25:36 PM  

HugeMistake: I'm all in favor of correct English grammar. All I need is for somebody to tell me where and when that English was spoken. Hint: the answer is not your seventh grade English class.


You obviously were not in Mr. Kenney's seventh grade English class; he surely would have informed you of the error of your ways.
 
2022-10-06 2:33:26 PM  
This is something up with which I will not put!
 
2022-10-06 2:34:37 PM  
"Grammar Nazi" is a phrase used by stupid, lazy people - it's as simple as that. To cover up their own inadequacies, they use the ancient psychological trick called projection in an attempt to shame those who actually care enough to make a decent effort to make themselves understood, rather than self-centeredly offloading that effort onto their audiences. It's the same thing as the well-known fascist dickhead trump suing CNN for being mean to him for trying to destroy the republic.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-06 2:45:19 PM  
To avoid being sus, do it with a quickness on the regular, but don't base it off of feel's alone.
 
2022-10-06 2:46:19 PM  
Irregardless, I ain't bothered. I could care less what words you use to speak with.
 
2022-10-06 2:50:11 PM  

seelorq: To avoid being sus, do it with a quickness on the regular, but don't base it off of feel's alone.


Based, king.
 
2022-10-06 2:52:02 PM  
I will just point out the irony of pointing to the Dictionary as an authority on language while also arguing that language evolves naturally and that there is thus no objective authority and let this thread die a natural death.
 
2022-10-06 4:17:19 PM  

Stephen_Falken: "Grammar Nazi" is a phrase used by stupid, lazy people - it's as simple as that. To cover up their own inadequacies, they use the ancient psychological trick called projection in an attempt to shame those who actually care enough to make a decent effort to make themselves understood, rather than self-centeredly offloading that effort onto their audiences. It's the same thing as the well-known fascist dickhead trump suing CNN for being mean to him for trying to destroy the republic.


[Fark user image 456x302]


TL;DR: People complaining about other people's English usage are, generally speaking, more wrong than the people they think they are correcting.


I am trying to think of a time when a Grammar Nazi "corrected" somebody with the aim of improving understanding rather than, for example, showing off their own fake erudition; or ignorantly insisting that English is what they were taught in school and nothing else. And I'm coming up empty.

By the way, many of the so-called rules of English were invented by grammarians and dictionarians in the 18th and 19th century either to show off their knowledge of Greek and Latin while perversely insisting that English should be more like the classical languages; or to invent sophistication that they are their readers could use to discriminate themselves from the lower classes. All the BS about not splitting infinitives; not ending a sentence with a preposition; or not starting with a conjunction: arbitrarily invented BS. People complaining about "Hopefully" at the start of a sentence are also showing their own ignorance of the English construct called a "sentence adverb". Hopefully, this is helpful.

My favorite grammarian BS though is that one that says that a double negative in English is a positive. I'm here to tell you that there ain't no such rule. I know a great many native English speakers, and almost invariably when they use a double negative, it's a negative. The one common exception is quite modern (to my knowledge), which is the deliberately ironic "not not", for example in the expression "I'm not saying he's a Grammar Nazi, but I'm not not saying it either".
 
2022-10-06 4:19:20 PM  

BeesNuts: I will just point out the irony of pointing to the Dictionary as an authority on language while also arguing that language evolves naturally and that there is thus no objective authority and let this thread die a natural death.


Most modern dictionaries acknowledge that their role is to document usage not to prescribe it. So while they are inevitably a little bit behind the most current usage, they very much exist to document the fact that language evolves naturally and to affirm that there is no objective authority.

I will just point out the irony of "correcting" people and being hopelessly wrong in the process.
 
2022-10-06 4:23:57 PM  

HugeMistake: Stephen_Falken: "Grammar Nazi" is a phrase used by stupid, lazy people - it's as simple as that. To cover up their own inadequacies, they use the ancient psychological trick called projection in an attempt to shame those who actually care enough to make a decent effort to make themselves understood, rather than self-centeredly offloading that effort onto their audiences. It's the same thing as the well-known fascist dickhead trump suing CNN for being mean to him for trying to destroy the republic.


[Fark user image 456x302]

TL;DR: People complaining about other people's English usage are, generally speaking, more wrong than the people they think they are correcting.


I am trying to think of a time when a Grammar Nazi "corrected" somebody with the aim of improving understanding rather than, for example, showing off their own fake erudition; or ignorantly insisting that English is what they were taught in school and nothing else. And I'm coming up empty.

By the way, many of the so-called rules of English were invented by grammarians and dictionarians in the 18th and 19th century either to show off their knowledge of Greek and Latin while perversely insisting that English should be more like the classical languages; or to invent sophistication that they are their readers could use to discriminate themselves from the lower classes. All the BS about not splitting infinitives; not ending a sentence with a preposition; or not starting with a conjunction: arbitrarily invented BS. People complaining about "Hopefully" at the start of a sentence are also showing their own ignorance of the English construct called a "sentence adverb". Hopefully, this is helpful.

My favorite grammarian BS though is that one that says that a double negative in English is a positive. I'm here to tell you that there ain't no such rule. I know a great many native English speakers, and almost invariably when they use a double negative, it's a negative. The one common exception is quite modern (t ...


The bed was not unmade.

Double negative.

Means the bed is made, but with additional context.

You were right about one very important thing, though.  See highlighted.

You can usually figure out whether it's intended to be a reversal via context.  But the ability to use a double negative as a rhetorical reversal is very handy.

The rules are almost always *useful* if only to inform the reasons to break them.

Also, spoken English and written English do not share the same conventions.
 
2022-10-06 4:27:49 PM  

HugeMistake: BeesNuts: I will just point out the irony of pointing to the Dictionary as an authority on language while also arguing that language evolves naturally and that there is thus no objective authority and let this thread die a natural death.

Most modern dictionaries acknowledge that their role is to document usage not to prescribe it. So while they are inevitably a little bit behind the most current usage, they very much exist to document the fact that language evolves naturally and to affirm that there is no objective authority.

I will just point out the irony of "correcting" people and being hopelessly wrong in the process.


Proscribe.
 
2022-10-06 4:31:16 PM  
Fark, I am disappoint!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-06 4:57:06 PM  
Like most things, I blame Seinfeld.
 
2022-10-06 5:14:28 PM  
Company Man - Agent X
Youtube K6ZhgmJuGbM
 
2022-10-06 5:32:34 PM  
It smells like sexual frustration in here.
 
2022-10-06 6:09:51 PM  

DannyBrandt: It smells like sexual frustration in here.


Does it?  I guess I wouldn't know that.

(toddles off, whistling off-key)
 
2022-10-06 7:08:48 PM  

BeesNuts: HugeMistake: BeesNuts: I will just point out the irony of pointing to the Dictionary as an authority on language while also arguing that language evolves naturally and that there is thus no objective authority and let this thread die a natural death.

Most modern dictionaries acknowledge that their role is to document usage not to prescribe it. So while they are inevitably a little bit behind the most current usage, they very much exist to document the fact that language evolves naturally and to affirm that there is no objective authority.

I will just point out the irony of "correcting" people and being hopelessly wrong in the process.

Proscribe.


"Prescribe" is correct. Wordbooks and usage manuals are generally descriptive or prescriptive.
 
2022-10-06 9:11:02 PM  
If you really want to troll them, call them 'grammar Nazi's.'
 
2022-10-07 1:55:58 AM  

HugeMistake: Stephen_Falken: "Grammar Nazi" is a phrase used by stupid, lazy people - it's as simple as that. To cover up their own inadequacies, they use the ancient psychological trick called projection in an attempt to shame those who actually care enough to make a decent effort to make themselves understood, rather than self-centeredly offloading that effort onto their audiences. It's the same thing as the well-known fascist dickhead trump suing CNN for being mean to him for trying to destroy the republic.


[Fark user image 456x302]

TL;DR: People complaining about other people's English usage are, generally speaking, more wrong than the people they think they are correcting.


I am trying to think of a time when a Grammar Nazi "corrected" somebody with the aim of improving understanding rather than, for example, showing off their own fake erudition; or ignorantly insisting that English is what they were taught in school and nothing else. And I'm coming up empty.

By the way, many of the so-called rules of English were invented by grammarians and dictionarians in the 18th and 19th century either to show off their knowledge of Greek and Latin while perversely insisting that English should be more like the classical languages; or to invent sophistication that they are their readers could use to discriminate themselves from the lower classes. All the BS about not splitting infinitives; not ending a sentence with a preposition; or not starting with a conjunction: arbitrarily invented BS. People complaining about "Hopefully" at the start of a sentence are also showing their own ignorance of the English construct called a "sentence adverb". Hopefully, this is helpful.

My favorite grammarian BS though is that one that says that a double negative in English is a positive. I'm here to tell you that there ain't no such rule. I know a great many native English speakers, and almost invariably when they use a double negative, it's a negative. The one common exception is quite modern (t ...


lol, just another person who has learned to be willfully obtuse about it but still got a D in English. iat's not worth reading that wall of words which only try to defend some self-created excuse for linguistic laziness. Do it right or don't, and live with the opinion people develop of you. And for f*ck sake stop complaining about your betters.
 
2022-10-07 2:44:56 AM  

HugeMistake: Stephen_Falken: "Grammar Nazi" is a phrase used by stupid, lazy people - it's as simple as that. To cover up their own inadequacies, they use the ancient psychological trick called projection in an attempt to shame those who actually care enough to make a decent effort to make themselves understood, rather than self-centeredly offloading that effort onto their audiences. It's the same thing as the well-known fascist dickhead trump suing CNN for being mean to him for trying to destroy the republic.


[Fark user image 456x302]

TL;DR: People complaining about other people's English usage are, generally speaking, more wrong than the people they think they are correcting.


I am trying to think of a time when a Grammar Nazi "corrected" somebody with the aim of improving understanding rather than, for example, showing off their own fake erudition; or ignorantly insisting that English is what they were taught in school and nothing else. And I'm coming up empty.

By the way, many of the so-called rules of English were invented by grammarians and dictionarians in the 18th and 19th century either to show off their knowledge of Greek and Latin while perversely insisting that English should be more like the classical languages; or to invent sophistication that they are their readers could use to discriminate themselves from the lower classes. All the BS about not splitting infinitives; not ending a sentence with a preposition; or not starting with a conjunction: arbitrarily invented BS. People complaining about "Hopefully" at the start of a sentence are also showing their own ignorance of the English construct called a "sentence adverb". Hopefully, this is helpful.

My favorite grammarian BS though is that one that says that a double negative in English is a positive. I'm here to tell you that there ain't no such rule. I know a great many native English speakers, and almost invariably when they use a double negative, it's a negative. The one common exception is quite modern (to my knowledge), which is the deliberately ironic "not not", for example in the expression "I'm not saying he's a Grammar Nazi, but I'm not not saying it either".


This is satire, right? You can't actually be that dense. A double negative most definitely equals a positive. If you are not "not" something (let's say hungry), then it's a positive. You are either hungry or not if you're not  'not hungry' , that would mean that you ARE hungry. It's pretty basic reasoning, actually.
 
2022-10-07 3:31:56 AM  
Bloody engineers
 
2022-10-07 7:44:46 AM  

Zog Zogu: BeesNuts: HugeMistake: BeesNuts: I will just point out the irony of pointing to the Dictionary as an authority on language while also arguing that language evolves naturally and that there is thus no objective authority and let this thread die a natural death.

Most modern dictionaries acknowledge that their role is to document usage not to prescribe it. So while they are inevitably a little bit behind the most current usage, they very much exist to document the fact that language evolves naturally and to affirm that there is no objective authority.

I will just point out the irony of "correcting" people and being hopelessly wrong in the process.

Proscribe.

"Prescribe" is correct. Wordbooks and usage manuals are generally descriptive or prescriptive.


"Desrcribitive"
/pet peave
 
2022-10-07 12:54:26 PM  

Stephen_Falken: "Grammar Nazi" is a phrase used by stupid, lazy people - it's as simple as that. To cover up their own inadequacies, they use the ancient psychological trick called projection in an attempt to shame those who actually care enough to make a decent effort to make themselves understood, rather than self-centeredly offloading that effort onto their audiences. It's the same thing as the well-known fascist dickhead trump suing CNN for being mean to him for trying to destroy the republic.


[Fark user image 456x302]


Sounds reasonable. Do you have penultimate solution to fix it?
 
2022-10-07 1:36:17 PM  

BeesNuts: The bed was not unmade.

Double negative.

Means the bed is made, but with additional context.


Correct. It does, mind you, have a whimsically archaic, almost Jeevesian flourish to it; not something one would hear very much in casual conversation.

Conversely, the constructions "ain't no" and its cousin "ain't none" are negative; "can't get no satisfaction" and "we don't need no education", "we don't need no stinkin' badges" also. I would posit that in general the construct "no <noun>" preceded by a negative verb is a double negative that remains negative, but not having examined more examples I suspect there may be counter examples.
 
2022-10-07 1:42:05 PM  

Mikey1969: This is satire, right? You can't actually be that dense. A double negative most definitely equals a positive. If you are not "not" something (let's say hungry), then it's a positive. You are either hungry or not if you're not  'not hungry' , that would mean that you ARE hungry. It's pretty basic reasoning, actually.


Conversely I very much hope that you are not this dense. In my life I have met a huge numbers of native English speakers, and all of them recognize that a phrase such as "there ain't no coffee left" is clearly a negative. It is a mystery to me how anybody can hear the language spoken and see it written by native speakers and somehow think that there is a "correct" language separate from that.

There are constructs in English where a double negative is a positive, such as the humorous "not not saying" and, as Beesnuts pointed out "not unmade" (or more generally, "not un<adjective>"). But it is abundantly clear, in the example I provided here and the examples I provided elsewhere in the thread, that a double negative in English is often an emphatic negative.

This remains true regardless of what your 6th grade English teacher told you was a "rule".
 
2022-10-07 1:46:46 PM  

Stephen_Falken: lol, just another person who has learned to be willfully obtuse about it but still got a D in English. iat's not worth reading that wall of words which only try to defend some self-created excuse for linguistic laziness. Do it right or don't, and live with the opinion people develop of you. And for f*ck sake stop complaining about your betters.


As a former professional tech writer, columnist, published author*, and somebody who in his last career was routinely called upon for help by his colleagues for writing and editing aid, I am here to tell you that you really should consider farking yourself before you make an even greater idiot of yourself than you already have.

I just explained this to you in great detail, with examples, and yet you seem to be determined to believe that the simplistic rule taught to you by your 6th grade English teacher is "right". Time to grow up, son.

*For my first book, the professional editor assigned to it added Oxford commas (I didn't know that was house style), left more or less everything else unchanged, and commented that it was one of the easiest assignements she had recently.
 
2022-10-07 1:50:02 PM  

BeesNuts: HugeMistake: BeesNuts: I will just point out the irony of pointing to the Dictionary as an authority on language while also arguing that language evolves naturally and that there is thus no objective authority and let this thread die a natural death.

Most modern dictionaries acknowledge that their role is to document usage not to prescribe it. So while they are inevitably a little bit behind the most current usage, they very much exist to document the fact that language evolves naturally and to affirm that there is no objective authority.

I will just point out the irony of "correcting" people and being hopelessly wrong in the process.

Proscribe.


No, I meant prescribe. I was explicitly contrasting the modern approach to dictionaries which is to document usage after the fact with the old-fashioned approach of dictating it before the fact. Had I intended to say "forbid" I would have written "proscribe", but that would have broken the symmetry of my sentence.

But in any case, thank you for perfectly illustrating the concept of "more wrong".
 
2022-10-07 1:50:50 PM  

HugeMistake: Stephen_Falken: lol, just another person who has learned to be willfully obtuse about it but still got a D in English. iat's not worth reading that wall of words which only try to defend some self-created excuse for linguistic laziness. Do it right or don't, and live with the opinion people develop of you. And for f*ck sake stop complaining about your betters.

As a former professional tech writer, columnist, published author*, and somebody who in his last career was routinely called upon for help by his colleagues for writing and editing aid, I am here to tell you that you really should consider farking yourself before you make an even greater idiot of yourself than you already have.

I just explained this to you in great detail, with examples, and yet you seem to be determined to believe that the simplistic rule taught to you by your 6th grade English teacher is "right". Time to grow up, son.

*For my first book, the professional editor assigned to it added Oxford commas (I didn't know that was house style), left more or less everything else unchanged, and commented that it was one of the easiest assignements she had recently.


P.S. Thank you also for being a perfect example of the kind of fool I mentioned earlier, who thinks that English is defined as something other than what English speakers say and write.
 
2022-10-07 6:07:22 PM  

BeesNuts: Zog Zogu: BeesNuts: HugeMistake: BeesNuts: I will just point out the irony of pointing to the Dictionary as an authority on language while also arguing that language evolves naturally and that there is thus no objective authority and let this thread die a natural death.

Most modern dictionaries acknowledge that their role is to document usage not to prescribe it. So while they are inevitably a little bit behind the most current usage, they very much exist to document the fact that language evolves naturally and to affirm that there is no objective authority.

I will just point out the irony of "correcting" people and being hopelessly wrong in the process.

Proscribe.

"Prescribe" is correct. Wordbooks and usage manuals are generally descriptive or prescriptive.

"Desrcribitive"
/pet peave


"Peeve"...

/ Sit up and pay attention
 
2022-10-07 8:26:01 PM  
don't these people know that words no longer have meaning?

humpty dumpty out front should have told you
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.