Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

DJR
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

Postby DJR » Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:51 pm

I almost forgot the case of using "of" instead of "have" ...

as in, "I could of gone to that movie."

ack!!!
formerly known as "Deanna" on UDBB -- and prior to that, as "DJD".

capstone
Herd Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby capstone » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:09 pm

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.

mari
Herd Member
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:57 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby mari » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:30 pm

For the Oxford comma haters. Made me giggle :D

Image
The aim of argument or of discussion should not be victory, but progress. ~ Joseph Joubert

Chancellor
Site Admin
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:26 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Chancellor » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:42 pm

Oh dear! Grammar IS hard. Thanks for the correction Capstone.

User avatar
somantu
Greenie
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:40 pm
Location: Toronto construction traffic

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby somantu » Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:45 am

Red Barn wrote:Gifted. Lessoned. Cliniced. Trialed...

:oops: I love those terms... I like made up words :oops:

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. :evil:
Proud Rubenesquestrian

User avatar
Chisamba
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 4462
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:33 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Chisamba » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:23 am

I happen to be a proponent of the Oxford comma.

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:26 pm

As are all people of refinement and culture. ;)

DD2
Greenie
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:15 pm

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby DD2 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:04 pm

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!! :evil:

DD2
Greenie
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:15 pm

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby DD2 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:05 pm

Just for fun....


What is wrong with this sentence?

I have never been to Paris.

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:51 pm


Tarlo Farm
500 post plus club
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:20 pm
Location: NW Michigan

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Tarlo Farm » Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:22 pm

But I've been to Oklahoma :lol: :lol:

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:48 pm

I come from Alabama with a banjo on my knee.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby boots-aregard » Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:55 pm

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.

bailey
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

Postby bailey » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:30 am

LOL, good one Boots!

The calmer I am, the stronger I am.

DD2
Greenie
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:15 pm

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby DD2 » Thu Nov 26, 2015 4:48 pm

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 :roll:

FlyingLily
Novice
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: South Texas

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby FlyingLily » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:02 pm

"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.

capstone
Herd Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby capstone » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:50 pm

"I may be bias" or "I am bias". I've seen this twice in the past few days.

hoopoe
Herd Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:36 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby hoopoe » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:04 pm

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

Koolkat
500 post plus club
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:15 am
Location: Cascade foothills

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Koolkat » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:54 pm

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.

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:05 am

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.

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:08 pm

Please stop using "purposefully" when you mean "purposely." You sound silly.

Rockabilly
Herd Member
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:06 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Rockabilly » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:09 pm

And when did "hurtful" come about?

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:32 pm

According to Merriam-Webster, sometime in 1526.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hurtful

Rockabilly
Herd Member
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:06 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Rockabilly » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:34 pm

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!

PaulaO
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:16 pm
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby PaulaO » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:12 pm

KathyK wrote:Please stop using "purposefully" when you mean "purposely." You sound silly.


I cannot like this enough.

User avatar
ironbessflint
Greenie
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:21 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby ironbessflint » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:53 pm

I saw this gem over the weekend:

Image

M&M
Herd Member
Posts: 277
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:08 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby M&M » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:44 pm

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.
Image

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:21 am

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.

Tarlo Farm
500 post plus club
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:20 pm
Location: NW Michigan

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Tarlo Farm » Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:38 am

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.

Koolkat
500 post plus club
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:15 am
Location: Cascade foothills

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Koolkat » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:54 am

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.

texsuze
500 post plus club
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:50 pm
Location: Texas, The Lone Star State!

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby texsuze » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:14 am

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?

LeoApp
Herd Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:41 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby LeoApp » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:04 pm

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!!

capstone
Herd Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby capstone » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:49 pm

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.

Astral
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

Postby Astral » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:50 pm

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?

capstone
Herd Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby capstone » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:51 pm

Astral wrote:"Horn in on." WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

Agree.

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:52 pm

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.

capstone
Herd Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby capstone » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:54 pm

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.

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:54 pm

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.

capstone
Herd Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby capstone » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:57 pm

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! :lol:

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?

Astral
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

Postby Astral » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:06 pm

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!

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby boots-aregard » Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:46 pm

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! :lol:

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.

LeoApp
Herd Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:41 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby LeoApp » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:19 pm

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. :)

Koolkat
500 post plus club
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:15 am
Location: Cascade foothills

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Koolkat » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:30 pm

Using "kind of" and "sort of" to modify a word when you mean "somewhat", etc. - I am accused very guilty of this abuse. Sloppy. . . .

capstone
Herd Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 am

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby capstone » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:18 pm

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.

Astral
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

Postby Astral » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:12 am

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...

FlyingLily
Novice
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: South Texas

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby FlyingLily » Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:36 pm

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.

Rockabilly
Herd Member
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:06 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Rockabilly » Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:44 pm

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.

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:29 pm

FlyingLily wrote:Not exactly a grammatical peeve; more like a "WTH are they teaching in school in Texas?!"

Creationism.

User avatar
Suzon
Herd Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:44 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA & Middle of Nowhere, OR

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby Suzon » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:54 am

mari wrote:For the Oxford comma haters. Made me giggle :D

Image



Not for nuttin', but does anyone else think Stalin looks like Freddy Mercury here?

KathyK
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Reconvening the Court of Grammatical Peeves

Postby KathyK » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:20 am

He does!


Return to “The Observation Lounge/ Cookbook Forum even Hot Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 140 guests