Grammar question

[Jenny]

The one that screams out at me in print is which when it should be that. And the increasing misuse and overuse of the word iconic drives me NUTS.

 

[Scrufflet]

I stopped watching The View when Sheri Sheppard said she "was not in agreeance with what Beyonce did". Why do people make up words? Aaaaggghhhh! I do but it is for fun and I know it and my friends know it.
Fave: a guy on TV said he was completely extorpilated. I would love to know what he meant. I wish I'd thought of it.

 

[Artemis@BC]

The one that screams out at me in print is which when it should be that.

That's probably one of the least understood grammar errors, but also one I don't find nearly as jarring.

Less/fewer is a trigger for me too, but it's so common it's become an automatic reflex.

 

[vesperholly]

"Should of" makes me SO stabby.

I lit a candle for this one ... http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/244240/ap-removes-distinction-between-over-and-more-than/

 

[madm]

take vs bring/brought
accept vs except
and everyone's favorite, your vs you're

My favorites:
affect vs. effect
its vs. it's
their vs. there

 

[PeterG]

I heard a guy refer to his body as being well portioned.

 

[madm]

The one that screams out at me in print is which when it should be that.

OK, I can't resist clearing up the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses (because I used to teach writing). Restrictive clauses limit the possible meaning of a preceding subject. Non-restrictive clauses tell you something about a preceding subject, but they do not limit, or restrict, the meaning of that subject. Here's a good explanation with examples:
http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaClauses__Restrictive_and_Nonrest.htm.

 

[DaveRocks]

"At this point in time" drives me up the wall. One can say: "at this point" or "at this time" or actually, most often, the phrase isn't needed at all.

 

[Prancer]

I stopped watching The View when Sheri Sheppard said she "was not in agreeance with what Beyonce did". Why do people make up words?

History of agreeance.

Some black and Southern dialects often include words from the 18th and 19th centuries that are not in standard use, but aren't made up terms, either.

 

[Nomad]

"As per" makes me want to slap people. It's "as" or "per"; there's no reason at all to use both.

 

[Susan1]

We're really doing good in this thread.

Har-de-har AND har!!!! (didn't know how to punctuate that one)

 

[Susan1]

take vs bring/brought

No fair. You stole my (other?) BIGGEST grammar pet peeve. AARRGGHH! You can't bring something somewhere unless "I" am there. (Hey, that kind of rhymed. I'm channeling Dr. Seuss or Schoolhouse Rock.)

 

[Susan1]

Seeing incorrect grammar (or spelling) in printed books drives me crazy. I don't like those in newspapers either but at least the np's are usually under time pressure.

Well, my all-time fave was "Driver's death casts paul over race". in a headline that took up the whole top half of the page. Was Paul McCartney there? Or Pope John Paul (yes, that long ago)? Sheesh. I wonder who his PAUL bearers were!!! I saw a later edition in a convenience store, and it was fixed. No, I hadn't called them to point out the error. How many times have I wanted to mark everything up with a red pen and send it back? Or reply to an online job posting with corrections!!!!

 

[Wiery]

Homeschooling mom here; emason is correct: "One" is the subject, "faces" is the correct verb; "in four" and "of our children" are prepositional phrases. "Hunger" is the direct object.

 

[snowbird]

Homeschooling mom here; emason is correct: "One" is the subject, "faces" is the correct verb; "in four" and "of our children" are prepositional phrases. "Hunger" is the direct object.

I'd call,"Hunger" an indirect object, object of the verb,"Face" but what do I know? I'm no grammarian.

 

[skatefan]

Oxford Dictionaries say otherwise.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/matching-verbs-to-collective-nouns-american
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/09/agreement-over-collective-nouns/

Had a quick look - it does refer to a few specific instances. I'm guessing those which could refer to an individual body or a number of individuals - their example is Police which I'd agree with depending upon context.

 

[snowbird]

Wiery is right and I am wrong. I woke up this mornining thinking more clearly. It's a good thing I'm not schooling Wiery's children.

 

[Susan1]

No fair. You stole my (other?) BIGGEST grammar pet peeve. AARRGGHH! You can't bring something somewhere unless "I" am there. (Hey, that kind of rhymed. I'm channeling Dr. Seuss or Schoolhouse Rock.)

Replying to myself - adding to my "all time" list - "try and" instead of "try to". Got reminded of that one watching the news this morning. Which made me think of people who try to sound oh so very grammatically correct by saying "....and I" instead of "....and me" after the verb. Too early to think of a good sentence example.

 

[Scrufflet]

History of agreeance.

Some black and Southern dialects often include words from the 18th and 19th centuries that are not in standard use, but aren't made up terms, either.

Holy cow! Who knew? Obviously not this Scrufflet! My only excuse is that I'm Canadian and not completely familiar with Southern dialects. I guess I can forgive Sheri for that.
Now if you can help with "extorpilated", my day will be complete.

 

[Nomad]

I'd call,"Hunger" an indirect object, object of the verb,"Face" but what do I know? I'm no grammarian.

"I sent a letter to Jane." Letter = direct object. "to Jane" = indirect object. The use of a preposition (to) is the clue here.

As for subject-verb agreement, I've noticed that there is a tendency these days to make the verb agree with the closest noun, whether it's the actual subject or not.
"A box of chocolates is on the table." (correct) "A box of chocolates are on the table." (incorrect)

 

[Wiery]

"Should of" makes me SO stabby.

I lit a candle for this one ... http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/244240/ap-removes-distinction-between-over-and-more-than/

I have heard a kitten dies every time "should of" or "could of" is used instead of should and could have. Poor, poor kittehs...

 

[Susan1]

I have heard a kitten dies every time "should of" or "could of" is used instead of should and could have. Poor, poor kittehs...

Thinking.......isn't should've a contraction of should have. It just sounds like should of? I say should've or could've or would've. (And now the word "should" looks so funny to me........) They don't get spellcheck red wavy lines under them here, so they must be real words. I was starting to doubt myself for a second. Now, if you see it in writing with the of, that's a bad, bad thing!! Then there's always the slang expression of regret - "shoulda, woulda, coulda".

 

[Artemis@BC]

Yeesh, first we're skinning cats, now we're killing kittens? Oh, the humanity!

 

[Artemis@BC]

And speaking of "oh": another peeve of mine is people who write "Oh Canada." Wrong! It's "O Canada"!

 

[Vash01]

This thread has generated so much laughter! Thank you for starting it.

 

[Really]

I have two that drive me up the wall...

1) Using *awe* when the writer means *aw*, as in "Aw, that's so cute!"
2) Saying the word *verse* when the person means *versus*.

 

[Wiery]

Wiery is right and I am wrong. I woke up this mornining thinking more clearly. It's a good thing I'm not schooling Wiery's children.

Honestly, it scares me that I am homeschooling them, but I am actually one of those scary homeschoolers who practices academic rigor

Thinking.......isn't should've a contraction of should have. It just sounds like should of? I say should've or could've or would've. (And now the word "should" looks so funny to me........) They don't get spellcheck red wavy lines under them here, so they must be real words. I was starting to doubt myself for a second. Now, if you see it in writing with the of, that's a bad, bad thing!! Then there's always the slang expression of regret - "shoulda, woulda, coulda".

Should've and could've are indeed contractions of should have and could have.http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/should-have-or-should-of?page=all

 

[mag]

EVERY TIME somebody on t.v. says less - I yell "FEWER". What t.v. network used to say "less commercials"? Made me want to scream!!!

Here's a simple way to explain it to someone without the "technical" singular/plural grammar lesson - less thing, fewer things.

Haven't read the entire thread, but just want to jump in here because this is a pet peeve of mine. Another way to remember is that if you can count, or theoretically count, something, then fewer is correct. If you can't count it, then use less. For example, fewer grains of sand, but less sand. Fewer snowflakes, but less snow.

 

[JasperBoy]

Yeesh, first we're skinning cats, now we're killing kittens? Oh, the humanity!

DH equates culling his precious books with killing kittens. He's the same guy who knows better than to mention skinning cats.
Felines rule in our house.

 

[Scrufflet]

DH equates culling his precious books with killing kittens. He's the same guy who knows better than to mention skinning cats.
Felines rule in our house.

They also rule in our house! So leave the kitties out of it!