Thread: 20 Common Grammar Mistakes

Originally Posted by Ted Heiks

Nor is spelling.

You are correct. I marvel about my successes. Talent is not everything.
*

I have helped many others in learning second languages and I can tell you from experience that there is no greater obstacle in the world than...

Originally Posted by Kizmet

I don't think I could do it.

Therefore, you probably can't. Nice job doing that to yourself :)

If you one day decide to learn another language, including different accents and dialects, then the first thing you need to learn is that your brain is a miracle. It is capable of much more than you might give it credit for.

Originally Posted by ryoder

For example, the following is wrong:
Google is a great company. They strive for excellence.

Says who? The subject of the second sentence does not need to be the same subject as the first (even if the identity of the pronoun subject is not explicitly identified), especially when the second subject is implied by the word "company" which is used both as a singular noun and as a collective noun (which I suspect that is why companies are called companies). Even more so, your suggested alternative leaves a lot to be desired.

This is correct.

Google is a great company. It strives for excellence.

That is not correct. That is a fallacy of hypostatisation*.

It is rarely a good idea to engage in prescriptive grammar critique, especially given how arbitrary and oppressive the history of prescriptive English grammar has been. Trust me. I do languagy things and stuff for a living.

*EDIT: I just realized that some might disagree that this is a fallacy given that it doesn't look like it is an argument, so I just wanted to point out that this is a syllogism with an implied major premise that "All great companies strive for excellence."

	Ashford University Ashford University Ashford offers online MBA, bachelors, and masters in many fields, including Business, Accounting, Business Administration, International Business, Economics, Business Information Systems, Social and Criminal Justice, Communication, Early Childhood Education and Administration, Education and Public Policy, English, Entrepreneurship, Environmental Studies, Finance, Health Care Administration, HC Studies, Health and Human Services, History, Homeland Security and Emergency Mgmt, Human Resource Mgmt, Journalism, Communication, Operations Mgmt, Organizational Mgmt, Political Science, Psychology, Public Admin, Public Relations, Social Sciences, Sociology, Risk Management, Sports, Teacher Certification, Education, Health Care Administration, Organizational Management, Teaching & Learning with Technology, and Public Administration. The school is regionally accredited, the most widely recognized accreditation. Click Here to receive FREE information on this school.

Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac

I have helped many others in learning second languages and I can tell you from experience that there is no greater obstacle in the world than...Therefore, you probably can't. Nice job doing that to yourself :)

If you one day decide to learn another language, including different accents and dialects, then the first thing you need to learn is that your brain is a miracle. It is capable of much more than you might give it credit for.

You're probably right. What may be closer to the truth is that I just don't care enough about it to try. Too busy doing other things.

Originally Posted by ryoder

Yes I know. This one is common among American English speakers. I use grammarly.com to detect problems like this. It costs about 100 bucks per year but is well worth it. People also use "they" when referring to a company, as if the company is not its own entity. Everybody knows that corporations have personhood and exist as a singular entity.

For example, the following is wrong:
Google is a great company. They strive for excellence.

This is correct.

Google is a great company. It strives for excellence.

That's great! I use Ginger Software. I think Grammarly and Ginger are competitors. =p
I did try Grammarly on my friend's com but I prefer Ginger - has a friendlier interface and it edits according to the context of the sentence. Makes proofreading my work a breeze...

Grammar Nazis - YouTube

Probably not safe for work, some violence and blood in the end. Still funny.

Originally Posted by 03310151

Grammar Nazis - YouTube

Probably not safe for work, some violence and blood in the end. Still funny.

That's hilarious!!!!!!!!

Abner

who cares our language is getting simple and easy to use and its wonderful no more need for capital letters to start and lots of rules on punctuation just use the period alot. i am working on adding in textspeak and the like to my writing though to make things easier. its now truly becoming the global language our english now that the electronic age and young people are doing what should have been done toss the rules out and make new ones keeping this all simple.

i'm :) 2 b back !

Originally Posted by Anthony Pina

The most common mistake, by far, that I have seen in 25 years in higher ed is singular-plural disagreement. I find it constantly, because we often tend to speak that way. For example:

If a teacher completed a masters degree, then they will get a raise.

I know I do this too often <grin> but I don't think what you've written sounds bad. If you were to say he or she...get a raise, it would be better, but to keep it gender neutral you really are stuck with "they." Could a person even argue that this use of they is singular? It "sounds" singular to me, even though it usually would be plural.

I always hated English class lol.

Originally Posted by cookderosa

I know I do this too often <grin> but I don't think what you've written sounds bad. If you were to say he or she...get a raise, it would be better, but to keep it gender neutral you really are stuck with "they." Could a person even argue that this use of they is singular? It "sounds" singular to me, even though it usually would be plural.

I always hated English class lol.

English doesn't have a singular neuter pronoun- at least not inherently. Using "he" for that purpose, like how French handles the same situation, has become socially unacceptable by those who fear the implications of a "masculine generic." Although I personally avoid using "they" as a neuter pronoun due to the taboo it seems to have in professional and academic circles, I see no reason why "they" couldn't function as a singular neuter pronoun in addition to its regular duties as a plural neuter pronoun. Consider that "I are" is improper but that "aren't I?" is proper. Grammar is only "wrong when the thing said is either unclear to the receiver or the receiver is a grammar Nazi.

By the way, the ONLY undisputed and universal definition of "proper grammar" or "proper speech" is "that which is used by the highest social class." Consider that infinitives have been split since before Modern English even existed as a language and that "Ain't" was once considered formal and that articulate people used to "aks" questions whereas less articulate people used to "ask" questions. Today, the exact reverse is true, but the fact that the higher classes demand linguistic assimilation has not changed at all.

Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac

If you one day decide to learn another language, including different accents and dialects, then the first thing you need to learn is that your brain is a miracle. It is capable of much more than you might give it credit for.

I hope you're right. The university where I work is offering an informal non-credit course in Arabic starting in March and since it's next to free for staff, I've signed up. I've never considered trying on a non-Indo-European language for size, so we'll see whether it fits. At least it's not tonal, and while the alphabet will take some getting used to, I'm told the language has phonetic spelling.

Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac

English doesn't have a singular neuter pronoun- at least not inherently. Using "he" for that purpose, like how French handles the same situation, has become socially unacceptable by those who fear the implications of a "masculine generic." Although I personally avoid using "they" as a neuter pronoun due to the taboo it seems to have in professional and academic circles, I see no reason why "they" couldn't function as a singular neuter pronoun in addition to its regular duties as a plural neuter pronoun. Consider that "I are" is improper but that "aren't I?" is proper. Grammar is only "wrong when the thing said is either unclear to the receiver or the receiver is a grammar Nazi.

By the way, the ONLY undisputed and universal definition of "proper grammar" or "proper speech" is "that which is used by the highest social class." Consider that infinitives have been split since before Modern English even existed as a language and that "Ain't" was once considered formal and that articulate people used to "aks" questions whereas less articulate people used to "ask" questions. Today, the exact reverse is true, but the fact that the higher classes demand linguistic assimilation has not changed at all.

It's like this. I've never even heard of a neutered pronoun, you could even be making that up, but I'm not going to check, I'm just going to go with it. :)

BTW, saying "neutered pronoun" in a reply totally trumps anything anyone else has said. You win.

Originally Posted by cookderosa

It's like this. I've never even heard of a neutered pronoun, you could even be making that up, but I'm not going to check, I'm just going to go with it. :)

BTW, saying "neutered pronoun" in a reply totally trumps anything anyone else has said. You win.

To paraphrase Bob Barker, please remember to have your subject pronouns spayed or neutered :)

Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac

English doesn't have a singular neuter pronoun- at least not inherently. Using "he" for that purpose, like how French handles the same situation, has become socially unacceptable by those who fear the implications of a "masculine generic." Although I personally avoid using "they" as a neuter pronoun due to the taboo it seems to have in professional and academic circles, I see no reason why "they" couldn't function as a singular neuter pronoun in addition to its regular duties as a plural neuter pronoun.
.

I am a HUGE fan of the singular "they."

SIDE NOTE: If anyone isn't up on the topic, the wikipedia page is a good start (Singular they - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

I do my best to avoid it in formal writing, but I use the singular they in speech all the time. When I write, I typically attempt to pluralize the wording as much as I can, but if I cannot, I typically rely on the awkward "he or she" because I would much rather be perceived as awkward than sexist.

I do understand that people using the generic "he" do not necessary intend any sexist overtones, but I prefer to respect the fact that some people are offended by its use. If language has the ability to make a simple adaptation to avoid offense, I think we should do it. This isn't a matter of political correctness. I'm perfectly fine with being politically incorrect if necessary, but endorsing a prescriptivist grammar for the sake of a prescriptivist grammar isn't worth the offense.

On another note, I wish that the English language had retained the use of "Thou/Thee." Having one form function as the singular and plural version of the 2nd person both in the objective and in the nominative case does nothing to help clarity.

Originally Posted by StefanM

I am a HUGE fan of the singular "they."

SIDE NOTE: If anyone isn't up on the topic, the wikipedia page is a good start (Singular they - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

I do my best to avoid it in formal writing, but I use the singular they in speech all the time. When I write, I typically attempt to pluralize the wording as much as I can, but if I cannot, I typically rely on the awkward "he or she" because I would much rather be perceived as awkward than sexist.

I do understand that people using the generic "he" do not necessary intend any sexist overtones, but I prefer to respect the fact that some people are offended by its use. If language has the ability to make a simple adaptation to avoid offense, I think we should do it. This isn't a matter of political correctness. I'm perfectly fine with being politically incorrect if necessary, but endorsing a prescriptivist grammar for the sake of a prescriptivist grammar isn't worth the offense.

On another note, I wish that the English language had retained the use of "Thou/Thee." Having one form function as the singular and plural version of the 2nd person both in the objective and in the nominative case does nothing to help clarity.

I'm actually not a fan of the singular they, but it is simply a poetic ideolectic preference and I accept that forces beyond my control are at work. I see no logical reason why that, or any phonemically intelligable syllable in English can not serve that purpose. I find myseld quite often using the words "one" and "one's" in order to sound more educated while avoiding the trickiness of using the "wrong" phrase in the perception of some.

I think I better stop now, lest I convince more people that my languagy type words and things are my attempt at showing off... :\