Grammar question

[Scrufflet]

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*.

No! Two more I'm going to have to notice!

 

[once_upon]

This thread reminds me the grammar police are vigilant and reviewing/criticizing every word/sentence I say or post.

 

[PeterG]

This thread reminds me the grammar police are vigilant and reviewing/criticizing every word/sentence I say or post.

Your paragraphs are being extremely monitored as well...

 

[made_in_canada]

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

Sounds like you're probably one of the parents that can actually handle homeschooling The store I work at has educational supplies and we get a lot of homeschoolers. I try not to judge but if I have to explain what phonics are and have to help you count your change maybe homeschooling isn't the best option

 

[PeterG]

Is there an error in this sentence:

After initial concerns about the cost of hosting the Holiday Train for just the second time, an anonymous sponsor stepped forward to cover most of them.

(A singular) cost is mentioned at the beginning of the sentence and then "most of them" (most of the costs) is mentioned at the end of the sentence. How can most of the costs be covered when it was previously stated that there was only one single cost? Please school me if I'm wrong.

 

[Vash01]

Is there an error in this sentence:



(A singular) cost is mentioned at the beginning of the sentence and then "most of them" (most of the costs) is mentioned at the end of the sentence. How can most of the costs be covered when it was previously stated that there was only one single cost? Please school me if I'm wrong.

I believe there is an error here. There is just one (singular)cost here. The sentence uses 'them', which is incorrect. The sponsor is not covering the concerns; he/she is covering the cost

 

[nlloyd]

One of my pet peeves in North America is the use of an adjective instead of an adverb e.g. he has learnt to drive smoother (instead of "more smoothly").

An issue that often confuses me is the use of "alternate" and "alternative." I see "alternate" used when I would have used "alternative" e.g. an alternate spelling is . . .

The Grammarist website describes the correct usage in the following way:

An alternate is something or someone that serves in place of another. An alternative is a second option that does not replace the first. For example, when a road undergoing maintenance is closed to traffic, you have to take an alternate route. But when an under-construction road is still accessible to traffic, you might choose to take an alternative route to avoid congestion. The first option is still there, and the alternative gives you a choice.

http://grammarist.com/usage/alternate-alternative/

 

[nlloyd]

Oh, I thought of another common problem, similar to the one the OP noted: the use of the plural with the word "neither." The correct use is "neither of them has been to Italy," but I often hear "neither of them have been to Italy."

I usually follow the same rule for "none," but believe that one can use either the singular or the plural form of the verb: "none of the cars is/are currently available."

 

[nlloyd]

double post

 

[Prancer]

I usually follow the same rule for "none," but believe that one can use either the singular or the plural form of the verb: "none of the cars is/are currently available."

None as a singular versus none as a plural.

People correct me on this one all the time because they had teachers in middle school who taught them that none is always a singular.

 

[nlloyd]

None as a singular versus none as a plural.

People correct me on this one all the time because they had teachers in middle school who taught them that none is always a singular.

Ah, yes. I was taught to substitute "no one" to help me figure it out, but when you use "not any" as the substitute (as in the sentence, "none of them are coming to the party") the plural makes sense.

 

[emason]

I interpret the 'none' in 'none of them are coming to the party' as 'not one' and I say 'none of them is coming to the party'.

 

[Japanfan]

After initial concerns about the cost of hosting the Holiday Train for just the second time, an anonymous sponsor stepped forward to cover most of them.

This should be 'cover most of it'. But it's not a very good sentence. I would prefer something to the effect of: 'NAME PARTY was/were initially concerned about the costs of hosting the Holiday Train for the second a time, but an anonymous sponsor stepped forward to cover most of those costs'.

I interpret the 'none' in 'none of them are coming to the party' as 'not one' and I say 'none of them is coming to the party'.

Wouldn't both 'none of them' and 'not one of them' be okay?

 

[ItalianFan]

my pet peeve is the word wellness. I maintain that it doesn't even exist. The opposite of illness is well being not wellness. But let's face it, if you are worried about bad grammar it means you are probably 60 yo and over the hill....
Reading comments below anything on internet is discouraging. Practically no one can write grammatical English any more and let's not even mention the obsessive use of profanity or insults by people who evidently have no alternative in the way of vocabulary.

 

[nlloyd]

Wouldn't both 'none of them' and 'not one of them' be okay?

I think so. Perhaps it is similar to the rule about the agreement of the verb with collective nouns: consider whether you are referring to the collective as a whole or the individuals that comprise it. Most of the time I prefer the singular e.g. the team has an away game; the faculty is away on retreat.

 

[Prancer]

my pet peeve is the word wellness. I maintain that it doesn't even exist.

According to my etymology dictionary, "wellness" has been in use since the mid-1600s. And apparently the author of Grammarphobia has the same book.

I think so. Perhaps it is similar to the rule about the agreement of the verb with collective nouns: consider whether you are referring to the collective as a whole or the individuals that comprise it.

Basically, yes. I think this explains it pretty well.

The most sensible rule is the one that governs similar words designating a portion of something (fractions, percentages, and indefinite pronouns such as some, most, many, all, and more). Just as we write "some of it is" or "two-thirds of it is", we would write "none of it is"; just as write "some of them are" or "two-thirds of them are", we would write "none of them are."

Idiomatically, few of us would be comfortable with "None of these people is happy" or "None of my friends is going with me." The sense here is plural: not any. Yet the myth of the singularity of none persists, even among people who frequently say, "None . . . are." (Why is it that some people cling to a simplistic rule, even when it's wrong, rather than face the necessity of making a choice based on sense?)

When the sense is plural (as indicated by a plural noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase – "none of [plural entity]"), none is plural; when the sense is singular (as indicated by a singular noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase – "none of [singular entity]"), none is singular.

Furthermore, we may have some instances in which either is correct. The American Heritage Dictionary notes: "The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect. Both options are acceptable in this sentence: None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial." And that is true because the sense of none may be construed here as either "not one" or "not any."

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1026513/9903.htm

 

[Artemis@BC]

I was reminded of another one of my grammar peeves while watching TV last night, though this one is a bit more subtle:

"The following program may contain scenes that are disturbing for some audiences."

No! It should be: "The following program contains scenes that may be disturbing for some audiences." That it contains the scenes is not in question, it's whether or not they're disturbing.

Some networks do get this right, but most that I've heard get it wrong.

 

[Tinami Amori]

my pet peeve is the word wellness. I maintain that it doesn't even exist. The opposite of illness is well being not wellness. But let's face it, if you are worried about bad grammar it means you are probably 60 yo and over the hill....

"illness" and "wellness" have meanings and uses other than "sickness" and "health"; "ill" and "well" are variations of "good" and "bad".

 

[Tinami Amori]

I was reminded of another one of my grammar peeves while watching TV last night, though this one is a bit more subtle:

"The following program may contain scenes that are disturbing for some audiences."

No! It should be: "The following program contains scenes that may be disturbing for some audiences." That it contains the scenes is not in question, it's whether or not they're disturbing.

I think it depends how the word "programme" is used. If "programme" refers to a specific episode or a segment, then you're right. If it refers to multi-segment programme, then the original sentence is correct, because some episodes may or may not contain disturbing scenes.

 

[Artemis@BC]

^ Hmm, I think that's a bit of a stretch ... but I also think episode is implied, as it's "the following." And they don't air that warning with every episode of a series, just for the ones that have the potentially disturbing scenes. (Last week's episode of The Good Wife, for example, had the warning whereas most episodes do not.)

 

[Susan1]

"illness" and "wellness" have meanings and uses other than "sickness" and "health"; "ill" and "well" are variations of "good" and "bad".

Which made me think of something - as a lifetime "amateur" grammartician (no degree in English or anything like some people here), as much as incorrect grammar bugs me, I refuse to say I feel "badly". That has always freaked me out! Would you say I feel terribly?

Another supposedly correct one that I hate, hate, hate is "AN historic whatever". Would you say "an history test"? Somebody with a rule book want to explain those two stupid things to me?

 

[Vash01]

Which made me think of something - as a lifetime "amateur" grammartician (no degree in English or anything like some people here), as much as incorrect grammar bugs me, I refuse to say I feel "badly". That has always freaked me out! Would you say I feel terribly?

Another supposedly correct one that I hate, hate, hate is "AN historic whatever". Would you say "an history test"? Somebody with a rule book want to explain those two stupid things to me?

I have always wondered why they use 'an' before historic. It just seems wrong because 'H' is not a vowel.

 

[Japanfan]

"The following program may contain scenes that are disturbing for some audiences."

No! It should be: "The following program contains scenes that may be disturbing for some audiences." That it contains the scenes is not in question, it's whether or not they're disturbing.

Taken literally, the former statement concludes that certain scenes are definitely disturbing for certain audiences, and indicates that these scenes might or might not be included in the following program. The statement could be made about any program or any series.

The latter statement doesn't make that assumption. In stating 'scenes that may be disturbing', it does not conclude that any scenes are disturbing and just acknowledges that certain scenes could be disturbing. The statement pertains specifically to the program the viewer is about to watch.

It's the placement of 'may' that makes the difference - the first applies to the program, the second to scenes.

 

[nlloyd]

Idiomatically, few of us would be comfortable with "None these people is happy" or "None of my friends is going with me." The sense here is plural: not any. Yet the myth of the singularity of none persists, even among people who frequently say, "None . . . are." (Why is it that some people cling to a simplistic rule, even when it's wrong, rather than face the necessity of making a choice based on sense?)
http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1026513/9903.htm

This is where I err; I would be comfortable will the examples provided.

On related note, I have always been uncomfortable with the use of "data" in the plural e.g. the data are being prepared for processing. This usage seems fairly recent to me (I don't recall hearing it ten years ago) or perhaps it is just that I have worked more with social scientists recently.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Which made me think of something - as a lifetime "amateur" grammartician (no degree in English or anything like some people here), as much as incorrect grammar bugs me, I refuse to say I feel "badly". That has always freaked me out! Would you say I feel terribly?

Another supposedly correct one that I hate, hate, hate is "AN historic whatever". Would you say "an history test"? Somebody with a rule book want to explain those two stupid things to me?

I am not only amateur, i am a foreigner and only playing with English.

- "Badly done, Emma!" (Mr. Knightly, Jane Austen, "Emma")

- History = istoria, estoria, estorya (old latin and other ancient languages), therefore "an" pops up and can be loosely justified, but it is not correct.

On related note, I have always been uncomfortable with the use of "data" in the plural e.g. the data are being prepared for processing. This usage seems fairly recent to me (I don't recall hearing it ten years ago) or perhaps it is just that I have worked more with social scientists recently.

I think "data" is plural in Latin, and use of its singular form (datum) is rare and may appear pretentious in casual conversations or in non-scientific writings. I use "data" in plural if there are, for example, multiple print-outs or several sources of "data", and use singular if there is only one source or form of "data", like 1 disk, 1 print out, 1 report. I don't know if it is grammatically correct, but makes sense to me somehow...

 

[Vash01]

This is where I err; I would be comfortable will the examples provided.

On related note, I have always been uncomfortable with the use of "data" in the plural e.g. the data are being prepared for processing. This usage seems fairly recent to me (I don't recall hearing it ten years ago) or perhaps it is just that I have worked more with social scientists recently.

I thought the word Data was plural of Datum?

 

[DaveRocks]

Another one that bothers me, especially in written form: the placement of "only" in a sentence.

"He only landed one quad in his program." Drives me nuts!
"He landed only one quad in his program." Much better.

 

[Prancer]

Another supposedly correct one that I hate, hate, hate is "AN historic whatever". Would you say "an history test"? Somebody with a rule book want to explain those two stupid things to me?

It depends on whether you aspirate the H or pronounce the H.

The use of A or An does not depend on the next word starting with a vowel; it depends on whether the following word starts with a vowel sound. You say "a unicorn" rather than "an unicorn," even though the word following the article begins with a vowel because the U sounds like a Y--younicorn. But you would say "an uber fan" because the U in that case sounds like "oooo."

If you do not pronounce the H, then the word historic becomes 'istoric, and in that case, an would be the appropriate article because the word then begins with a vowel sound. For some reason, I say "a history book" but "an 'istoric occasion." It's a weird speech quirk, especially for an American, but my article use is correct based on my pronunciation.

I thought the word Data was plural of Datum?

It is, although idiomatically, data is used as both a plural and a singular.

Another one that bothers me, especially in written form: the placement of "only" in a sentence.

"He only landed one quad in his program." Drives me nuts!
"He landed only one quad in his program." Much better.

But it depends on what you mean (although everyone here always means the latter) .

ETA: My pet peeve is "Just between you and I." Or really, any misuse of I, as in "You are getting a Christmas gift from my husband and I." Grrrrrrrrrrr.

 

[nlloyd]

I thought the word Data was plural of Datum?

It is, but it has sometimes been understood as a collective noun. This Oxford Dictionary offers a good explanation:

"In Latin, data is the plural of datum and, historically and in specialized scientific fields, it is also treated as a plural in English, taking a plural verb, as in the data were collected and classified. In modern non-scientific use, however, it is generally not treated as a plural. Instead, it is treated as a mass noun, similar to a word like information, which takes a singular verb. Sentences such as data was collected over a number of years are now widely accepted in standard English."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/data

 

[Japanfan]

'An hIstoric' is one my pet peeves. There is an 'h' in the word history. The word is not 'istory'.

Another one that bothers me, especially in written form: the placement of "only" in a sentence.

"He only landed one quad in his program." Drives me nuts!
"He landed only one quad in his program." Much better.

I think both are fine, actually. There is a slight difference in terms of inference. The first suggests that multiple quads were attempted, but only one was landed. to the skater's detriment. The second is more just a statement and less a judgement. It could easily read 'He landed only quad in his program, but also landed two triple axels and a 3-3-2 sequence'.

That's my interpretation, in any case.