Little editing/grammar mistakes that drive you up the wall

[markfiend]

...examples of irregularization of a regular verb, along with dove.

I was wondering about that for a second. I read it as a bird of the family Columbidae rather than as the past tense of the verb to dive (which here is more usually dived.)

[Bobber]

I just realized, in a few hundred years, this board is going to be an extremely interesting read for a linguist. Maybe we should back it up on a thumb drive and put it in a time capsule.

[Velifer]

Yeah, "sneak" seems to be joining the ranks of such other terrible casualties of over-applying a pattern, like "catch"...

Ugh. People who say "dared" instead of "durst!" Heathens.
(but "durst" is pretty cool...)

Fit or fitted?

[gmalivuk]

In my mind, "fit" is the past for the intransitive form, like "these shoes fit me now, they fit me yesterday, and they've fit me for years". Fitted is for the transitive, like when you get fitted for a dress. "She fitted me for the suit yesterday."

I think it's interesting that people whine and bemoan the "loss" to language that comes from making a word regular. And also the loss from making a word irregular. And yet somehow they fail to notice that if some words are going one way, and others are going the opposite way, then overall we're not really losing the number of neat idiosyncrasies or anything like that. It's just change, not toward or away from anything.

[Monika]

This seems to have sneaked into the media and propagated like some sort of horrible worm, the use of "that" as a relative pronoun for people, as in "Were there any men that were wearing watches at the party?" It's like saying, "Before George left, it remembered to grab its keys", with "it" referring to George. English has a pronoun for people, and it is "who"/"whom". It should be used instead of the impolite "that". There were many men who wore watches to the party.

I think you mixed up "which" and "that". These are the four rules I learned in English class:
person, necessary relative clause: who[m] or that
person, non-necessary relative clause: who[m]
thing, necessary relative clause: which or that
thing, non-necessary relative clause: which

As English seems to be your mother tongue you probably didn't learn rules for which pronoun to use one way or the other (or maybe just regarding when to use "who" and when to use "whom"). So you go by what feels "strange", as everybody does for one's own language. Because in English it is possible to leave out the relative pronoun in necessary relative clauses (Is there any other language with such a strange thing?) and this is not only allowed, but even preferable, you don't get to hear or read sentences in which "that" is used as relative pronoun very often, so they don't feel familiar. And for persons it seems to be used even less frequently than for things.

['; DROP DATABASE;--]

I got some junk mail today proclaiming "Everyone likes to know what's up in there neighbourhood!"
Usually, mixing up their/there doesn't bother me, but I have to admit when an advertisement contains such a glaring error, it really makes me wonder about the quality of the product. After all, if nobody who saw this ad could spot the problem or had the common sense to proofread and verify it, how much better can I expect the quality control of the product to be?

(Or maybe it's missing a comma after "there"? )

Worst I saw though is "your add here". That cracked me right up.
I wonder how many mistakes I've made in this post that are driving people crazy? >_>

[Monika]

And what kind of product was that? Something for wiretapping your neighbors?

[<?php die(); ?>]

I personally hate it when people use "the most" or "by far" for things that are uncomparable.

Examples:
1. He's the most unique person I've ever met.
2. He's by far one of the best students at my school.

Nobody seems to share my opinion on the usage in the second example, but how is "by far one of the best" different from "one of the best"?

[Sir_Elderberry]

Nobody seems to share my opinion on the usage in the second example, but how is "by far one of the best" different from "one of the best"?

It's more intensive. "He finished first in the race" vs. "He finished first in the race, by far". It's the difference between winning by an inch and a mile, to exaggerate.

[gmalivuk]

Saying "the most unique" isn't a misuse of "most", but rather a weakening of the meaning of "unique", to mean something that can be true to degrees rather than either completely true (there is only one of something), or completely false (there is not only one of something).

And yeah, "by far" emphasizes and strengthens the superlative. He's not one of the best by a little bit, but by far. Even if you insist on using strict mathematical rules for parsing everyday language (which is in general a really silly thing to do), the "by far" in this example can have a specific statistical meaning, and thus still be a useful thing to add even if you want to interpret everything literally rather than admitting the existence of shades of meaning.

[frywater]

I decided to italicize a quote from Shakespeare in my signature. Does that drive anyone up the wall?

[GhostWolfe]

Should it?

[Velifer]

I decided to italicize a quote from Shakespeare in my signature. Does that drive anyone up the wall?

GASP! The First Folio has a colon, not a comma! INFIDEL!
*shrug* ...feel better?

[patrickbarrett22]

I personally hate when people don't type out the entire word when sending a text message or something of the sort. It's not really a grammar mistake I don't think, but it is still quite annoying.

[scgtrp]

Besides the obvious ones involving apostrophes and quotes where they don't belong, and similar things:
- Realizing there is a difference between fiancé and fiancée and then proceeding to mix them up anyway.
- Attempting to use computer terms and failing horribly (tower != hard drive != CPU; desktop background != screen saver).
- When programming I do not write codes; I write code.
- Nearly all abbreviations including a slash. The slash can mean "and" or "or". By that logic w/o would be "with and out" or "with or out", neither of which makes any sense at all.
- Spelling "what" as "wat" has always given me more homicidal feelings than any other misspelling I can think of.
- Writing the year as 09' instead of '09. (Really, writing the year as anything but 2009, but if you insist on two digits at least do it right.) I've only seen this once or twice but the person who did it should not be allowed near writing utensils anymore.
- Thinking a capital sigma is an E.
- Abbreviating Wikipedia to Wiki.

I'm also the only person I can think of who still manually types out words in SMS messages (and a few of my friends have phones with full keyboards, and therefore less excuses than me!) but for some reason it never bothered me much to see that.

[gmalivuk]

The slash can mean "and" or "or".

Says who?

[Bobber]

1. Nearly all abbreviations including a slash. The slash can mean "and" or "or". By that logic w/o would be "with and out" or "with or out", neither of which makes any sense at all.
2. Spelling "what" as "wat" has always given me more homicidal feelings than any other misspelling I can think of.
3. Writing the year as 09' instead of '09. (Really, writing the year as anything but 2009, but if you insist on two digits at least do it right.)
4. Thinking a capital sigma is an E.
5. Abbreviating Wikipedia to Wiki.

1. Proof that the slash can mean other things but "and" and "or" is found in the very abbreviation you disagree with: "w/o". Here, it just signifies that the word is abbreviated and that the syllable break is found where the slash is located in the word.
2. I'm pretty sure this is usually done jovially, at least on the Internet.
3. I understand that you don't want people to write 09', but what's wrong with writing '09 instead of 2009 when it is completely clear that no other century but the 21st is meant?
4. Yeah that's pretty bad. They do look somewhat alike, but they're far from identical and anyone with half-decent eye sight should be able to distinguish them from each other.
5. Hey, Wiki is a pretty official abbreviation. Why the animosity, if you will excuse my choice of word?

[Monika]

And in English there are other abbreviations similar to w/o, namely c/o (which even made it into German official postal addressing, even though nobody knows that it stands for care of) and n/a (also sometimes used in German, mostly in technical contexts, but here it's known that it stands for not applicable), and the internet slang j/k for just kidding. Maybe others, but I can't think of any.


Wiki <-> Wikipedia: Not an official abbreviation, not even an abbreviation at all! "Wiki" is a word on its own right and Wikipedia is a composite of wiki + encyclopedia, not the other way around. A wiki is a piece of software, a website that is editable by its users or a collaboration tool, whatever way you want to define it. There is nothing in "wiki" that implies that it's an encyclopedia of any kind. Only people for whom the Wikipedia is the only wiki they are familiar with think that wiki could possibly be an abbreviation for Wikipedia. Such people should be beheaded. The official abbreviation for Wikipedia is WP. In German this confusion causes even more havoc. "die Wikipedia" is a feminine noun (because "die Enzyklopädie" is, too). "das Wiki" is typically used with the neutral article, even though as a foreign and "artificial" noun it does not have an official article. Those people who believe Wikipedia and Wiki to be the same say "die Wiki". I suggest quartering.

I personally hate when people don't type out the entire word when sending a text message or something of the sort. It's not really a grammar mistake I don't think, but it is still quite annoying.

It saves money.

[Bobber]

Please don't behead me because I forgot the origins of "Wiki". I would be very sad.

The issue with gendered articles is an interesting one, and it also exists in Danish (and every other language with gendered articles, I could imagine). Not only in foreign words, but sometimes also in normal Danish words. I know of one word, "kop" (meaning cup) which some people swear is.. wait, what's the English term for the Danish "fælleskøn"? Bisexual? Anyway, the other side is adamant that it be preceded with the neuter article. It's interesting because genders of words are so integrated into our minds that it's almost impossible to accept that a noun is another gender once we've learned one and stuck with it our entire life. It's crazy.
So yeah, that's "koppen"/"koppet" and "planen"/"planet" (plan = plane, the final two letters denote that it's a definite noun along with its gender) if you were looking for a couple of examples written out and all.

[Monika]

Please don't behead me because I forgot the origins of "Wiki". I would be very sad.

You shall keep your head if you promise to use it wisely .

You're right about the gender stuff.

[gmalivuk]

what's the English term for the Danish "fælleskøn"? Bisexual?

You'd probably want "unisex" in this case. Bisexual refers to the sexual orientation where you're *attracted* to members of either sex. Unisex, on the other hand, is what we use for things like bathrooms or hair salons intended to be usable by either sex.

[Pez Dispens3r]

I just realized, in a few hundred years, this board is going to be an extremely interesting read for a linguist. Maybe we should back it up on a thumb drive and put it in a time capsule.

Do. Perhaps you could print it all out, as well. Any data is fantastic data for a historian, and linguists aren't an entirely separate breed.

[scgtrp]

Proof that the slash can mean other things but "and" and "or" is found in the very abbreviation you disagree with: "w/o". Here, it just signifies that the word is abbreviated and that the syllable break is found where the slash is located in the word.

The slash is often used, perhaps incorrectly, to separate the letters in a two-letter initialism such as R/C (short for radio control) or w/o (without). Purists strongly discourage this newer use of the symbol.

I suppose I'm a purist then.

I'm pretty sure [s/what/wat/] is usually done jovially, at least on the Internet.

Fair enough. It still bothers the hell out of me.

[Σ and E] do look somewhat alike, but they're far from identical and anyone with half-decent eye sight should be able to distinguish them from each other.

Or worse:

Hey, Wiki is a pretty official abbreviation.

It is not.

[Bobber]

RE: Bixesual/unisex: Yes, unisex would probably make a lot more sense. Thanks.

RE: Time Capsule: I need to figure out for how long flash drives can be in a time capsule without losing the readability of their data. I should probably attack documents on how USB technology works as well as technical data about the flash drive's functionality.

RE: "lol langwich change suxx": I guess you are a purist. Though I must say that I personally enjoy having realized that the perceived good/bad alignment of all change in language is entirely arbitrary and subjective, given that the change doesn't cause perilous risk of damaging communication integrity. An example of this would be if we suddenly decided to pronounce the letter "i" as the first verse of the Queen song "Bicycle Race", since it would make having a chat take half a day.

In Danish we have a saying that goes "Hyperbole increases comprehension".
I playfully applied it here.

[PM 2Ring]

Flash drives have their limitations due to the wear & tear that writing to them causes, but I suppose they should be ok for archival storage purposes. I don't know how well they'll last over the long term, although I guess they're less prone to corruption than magnetic media.

You may be interested in this article:

Digital preservation

Digital preservation is the management of digital information over time. Preservation of digital information is widely considered to require more constant and ongoing attention than preservation of other media[1]. This constant input of effort, time, and money to handle rapid technological and organisational advance is considered the main stumbling block for preserving digital information. Indeed, while we are still able to read our written heritage from several thousand years ago, the digital information created merely a decade ago is in serious danger of being lost, creating a digital Dark Age.

[Skythe]

Possessive vs contractions. I get lots of pamphlets with errors like this. It's totally ridiculous.

[Dibley]

- Writing the year as 09' instead of '09. (Really, writing the year as anything but 2009, but if you insist on two digits at least do it right.) I've only seen this once or twice but the person who did it should not be allowed near writing utensils anymore.

You might have seen it in a plural, like "the 60's", which, while somewhat deprecated these days, can't really be said to be incorrect per se, as the usage of an apostrophe to denote a plural form of something that's not quite a word is generally considered to be acceptable, though some style guides get pissy about it, but fuck style guides.

Or worse:

My goodness that is horrible, yet another reason to hate that show. Something else that bugs the hell out of me is faux-Russian with я and и used for R and N. They're fucking vowels!

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Interpretation being established at the moment of reading, the sigma signifies (sigmafies?) an allusion to fraternity names in addition to the normal functions of the letter E. Unless there are some sort of FDA directions on the proper use of the letter sigma, you can't really complain that it's being misused.

Descriptivism: It doesn't mean you can't be a pedantic asshole.

[scgtrp]

You might have seen it in a plural

Nope. According to the signage I was in the Class of 09' in high school.

in addition to the normal functions of the letter E

Except that it's an S.

[gmalivuk]

in addition to the normal functions of the letter E

Except that it's an S.

It's an /s/ in Greek, which is not the language being written there.

Do bilingual ambigrams piss you off as well? Since they use things that look like Chinese characters to stand in for English letters?

[Monika]

bilingual ambigrams

Ooo, pretty!

I gotta draw the Tokyo one and give it to my aunt, she used to live in Tokyo and works as a Japanese <-> German translator and will sure like it.

[scgtrp]

It's an /s/ in Greek, which is not the language being written there.

It is not an E in any language I know and is not a letter at all in English, so I don't see how that point is relevant. To use it as one is always wrong no matter what language you're writing in, unless you know of a language in which sigma makes the /e/ or /i/ sound. Why couldn't they use the Greek E instead of making themselves look like idiots to people who know better?

...Oh, right. "It does'nt look as" kewl wen u do it rite. Always a valid reason for doing something fundamentally wrong, of course.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

"Fundamentally wrong"? Are you trying to argue that the pronunciation of sigma is an intrinsic property of nature? Is it in Leviticus?

What the hell?

[scgtrp]

It is an intrinsic property of Greek, which is the only language I'm aware of in which sigma is a letter.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Is that television logo written in Greek, then?

[GhostWolfe]

It's an /s/ in Greek, which is not the language being written there.

It is not an E in any language I know and is not a letter at all in English, so I don't see how that point is relevant.

By virtue of "it's not a sigma"? It's a stylised E in a fashion that looks like sigma.

I write my capital E's to look like a reversed 3, am I also doing it the wrong way?

/angell

[scgtrp]

It's a stylised E in a fashion that looks like sigma.

Allow me to illustrate how ridiculous that claim is, because it cannot be said in words alone.



This is not a cat. It's a stylized dog that looks like a cat but still makes dog sounds.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Uhh — are you saying that it would be impossible to dress up a dog to look like a cat?

Anyway, I'll see your dog and raise you a pipe:

[scgtrp]

Uhh — are you saying that it would be impossible to dress up a dog to look like a cat?

I'm saying that you can't just say "but it's not a sigma, it's an E that looks like a sigma!" and pretend it's a logical argument.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

It's not precisely how I'd term it, but I think that the category "E" is a lot less stable and a lot less defined than you seem to take it.

And, to show precisely how I would, and have, termed it:

... the sigma signifies (sigmafies?) an allusion to fraternity names in addition to the normal functions of the letter E.