Grammar

Realize that I don't expect everyone to be perfect all of the time, but I do expect them to follow simple grammmatical standards, especially since we have mandatory schooling (ie - grade school). In particular, I'm referring to 2nd - 5th grade, when we formally learned grammar. It seems to me that some people weren't attentive then; some even sound like they're illiterate. Note that I'm not talking about people that were not educated in the normal sense (eg - mental retards), or foreigners (some of which learn English informally). Furthermore, I don't expect everyone to sound like a scholar.

I guess that some of you are wondering why anybody would care. Well, think about listening to somebody (eg - in person or on TV) that uses bad or inefficient grammar. If you're unaccustomed to the lingo, you're forced to interpret the speaker's intended meaning. Also consider that ignorance of common grammar diminishes credibility; people that sound unintelligent are more likely to be ignored. Moreover, inefficient grammar interferes with communication - it adds time and words that could reduce the listener's attentiveness.

OK boys and girls - it's time for English class! (well, that's how it seems ...)

Here are examples of illiteracy in speech and writing:

• misused homonyms (eg - its & it's, their & there)
• wrongly combined words (eg - alot, irregardless)
• misplaced modifiers

  "I only have $2, so I can't go out to eat."; say "... have only ..."

  "The main idea in driving is not to hit anybody."; say "... is to not ..."

  "This table just doesn't look nice - it's also functional."; say "... doesn't just ..."

• wrong verb tense (eg - "... it don't ...", "There's many uses for this.")
• confusing then/than: 'than' compares, 'then' denotes chronology
• dropped/wrongly used infinitive (eg - "The door needs painted.", "The flowers need watering.")
• confused plurals and possessives (eg - "I have to feed the dog's.", "the companies president", "He get's out more than I do.")
• wrong pronoun (eg - "She and me went out for dinner.")
• 'less' used in place of 'fewer'; "less money", "fewer dollars"; also "fewer than 10 hours"
• confusing they, them & those

  "Them are good." should be "They are good."

  "I like those." should be "I like them."; however, "I like those flowers." is correct.

Besides bad grammar, there are many other ways to butcher English:

• the letter O (oh) confused with the number 0 (zero)
• "try and ...": 'and' links two concepts; use "try to ..."
• reversed subject/object: eg - "It attaches to the wall like this."; say "It gets attached ..."
• 'replaced by': you don't 'replace this by that' ('replaced by' refers to who or what is actually doing the replacement); use 'replaced with'.
• redundancy

  "We presently have 5 available at this time."

  "repeat it again" (wrong if the second occurence is meant)

  "and/or" - "or" is inclusive (includes the possibility for both)

  "very very", "tiny little", "never ever", and "same exact"

• negative expressions

  "not usually wrong"; just use "usually correct"

  "It is not uncommon ..."; it's better to say "It is common ..."

• duplicating the subject (not using it or one)

  "This computer is the computer that crashed the network."; use "the one that"

  "This disk is a high-density disk."; use "It's a high-density disk."

  "I don't like that car. The car doesn't have enough power."; use "it doesn't"

  "Their mission is an important one."; say "Their mission is important." or "They have an important mission."

  "That over there, that's a ..."; say "That over there is a ..."

• erroneous phrases

  "Go ahead and ..." - 'go ahead' refers to movement

  "rate of speed" - speed is a rate - the rate of change in position with respect to time.

  "6 feet in height" - use "6 feet high"

  "blue in color" - can it be blue in some other way?

  "join them together" - 'join' means "to bring together"

  "raise it up" - 'raise' means "to elevate"

  "take action" - take it to where? Use "act"

  "20 years of age" - use "20 years old".

  "exactly the same" - use exact, same, identical, equal, etc.

  "continue on" - 'continue' means "to go on"

  "where at?" - use "where?"

  "more clean", "more dry", etc. - use "cleaner", "drier", etc.

What this is is it's absurd.

Ok, that's it for the usual stuff - now it's time for the really screwy phrases. I don't understand how these got into our culture - it's as if somebody put a lot of effort into conconcting a way to sound nonsensical. Even so, it confounds me why anybody would talk like this.

Let's say that I'm explaining how to make an egg omelet.

The first thing you have to do is you have to get a frying pan. Then you got to warm up the pan, so turn the burner on to medium. Also, put some butter in the pan, the reason being so that the omelet won't burn. Now what you have to do is you have to scramble the eggs. Crack the shell on the bowl's edge, but you have got to be careful so as to not get bits of shell in with the egg. What you do next is scramble the eggs with a fork. What you want to do is completely mix the yolk and white. If you like, you could add just a little bit of milk. Now you're ready to pour it into the pan and fry it (you could turn up the heat a bit, too). How you do this is pour it slowly (so it doesn't splatter), wait about 30 - 60 seconds, and check the underside. When it's done well enough, what you do is fold it in half (while still in the pan). You need to wait a bit till it's fully cooked, then eat.

So, do you understand what I mean? For comparison, here it is again (with proper, efficient grammar).

First, get a frying pan. Then turn the burner on to medium. Also, put some butter in the pan (so that the omelet won't burn). Now you have to scramble the eggs. Crack the shell on the bowl's edge, but be careful to not get bits of shell in with the egg. Next, scramble the eggs with a fork, completely mixing the yolk and white. If you like, you could add just a little bit of milk. Now you're ready to pour it into the pan and fry it (you could turn up the heat a bit, too). Pour it slowly (so it doesn't splatter), wait about 30 - 60 seconds, and check the underside. When it's done well enough, fold it in half (while still in the pan). Wait a bit (till it's fully cooked), then eat.

Notice how the latter one sounds more intelligent, and is a couple lines shorter? That isn't a coincidence; the way some people talk, they not only sound undeducated, but also add unnecessary words. (Granted, the first one is slightly exaggerated, but I didn't want to do 3 of these!)

I could explain this another way - consider a sentence such as: "I'm trying to do something, which is hook up my new TV." Sounds strange - right? Well, that's essentially what a person says when saying "What I'm trying to do is hook up my new TV." Or consider this one: "What happened was that car blew thru a red light." You're stating what happened; why mention that you're going to tell what happened? In other words, it's like the person says generally what is about to be said, then the actual statement - all in one sentence!

How about some variations?

You've probably heard variations on this concept. "The reason I did that was to ..."; you don't have to mention that this is the reason - it's implied. How about "What the reason is why I said that is because ..."? Wouldn't it be much better to say "I said that because ..."?

The underlying problem with these phrases is that an interrogative word beginning a sentence generally implies an interrogative sentence. Perhaps people that use this form of grammar think that the listener won't be able to figure out what is about to be said. Or, maybe some people think that there's something wrong with saying merely "We went over there and ..." instead of "What we did was go over there and ...".

Now consider the word got, which seems to be misused by many people. They say things like "I've got to go now!" and "I've got it right here." Why? Don't they realize that 'got' shouldn't be there? The infinitive (unconjugated verb) is to have. Spoken intelligently, these phrases would be "I have to go now!" and "I have it right here." There's something peculicar about this usage; if 'have', 'had', or 'has' precedes a verb, it's known as the past participle, and is said (e.g.) 'have gotten'. Even worse, sometimes have is just dropped: "I got it with me." In this usage, it seems as if the person considers got to be a synonym for have; it's actually the past tense of to get.

That's it for now; there will be more soon.