city data grammar (logic, require, best, subject)

[Drover]

Two of my pet peeves:

First, people who use the word "literally" to mean it exact opposite. "My mom was so mad she literally had a cow." Well no she didn't, unless you expect me to believe that you now have a bovine sibling.

Second, the phrases "partially destroyed" and "completely destroyed." "Destroyed" is an absolute state of being; either it is or it isn't. So "partially destroyed" is an oxymoron (kind of like "partially dead") and "completely destroyed" is redundant (kind of like "completely pregnant").

[Ibginnie]

Originally Posted by nicolepsy

thank you kindly maam. now where's that dang cup of coffee of mines?

dangit! wheres it at?

This too gets under my skin. I have nightmares of Sister Mary Crack your Knuckles yelling, "YOU NEVER END A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION!" (yes nico,I got the joke the joke this time.)

Originally Posted by YoAdrian

Ha! I can think of something just as weird, in reverse -- treating a plural as a singular, and then pluralizing it again. My mother-in-law calls the items that make up a recipe "ingredientses." I'm still not sure whether that's a regional thing (she's from southeast Michigan) or whether she's just ... uninformed.

I had a boyfriend that worked in construction. His use of the word "joistses drove me insane!

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Ibginnie

This too gets under my skin. I have nightmares of Sister Mary Crack your Knuckles yelling, "YOU NEVER END A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION!"

That's another pet-peeve of mine: trying to apply Latin rules of grammar to a Germanic language. I never understood why this bothers so many people. It's not even functionally improper; it's simply prescriptive.

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by Drover

That's another pet-peeve of mine: trying to apply Latin rules of grammar to a Germanic language. I never understood why this bothers so many people. It's not even functionally improper; it's simply prescriptive.

or oxymoronic??? I know it doesnt really apply, I just like the word

[nem]

Dear everyone!

I posted the question in another section of the Forum and was advised to repost it here.

So the question goes as this.

Just a week ago I finished reading the book by Charles Palliser The Quincunx.

And one sentence caught my eye:

"After an hour or so other servants appeared and began to start work."

began to start? The same idea twice?
Do English speakers often use it or here it is mostly the writer's usage?

Helen

[Drover]

Technically it's grammatically and syntactically correct to the extent that "to start" can be a process rather than a single point-in-time event. Were it exclusively the latter, "begin to start" would be redundant. Any way you look at it, the sentence is still pretty awkward.

[RDSLOTS]

Hmm. . . as this writer's HS English teacher, I'd have noted for the student 'redundant' and to 'omit' began or to start -- one or the other, but not both. Charles Palliser either writes for a newspaper/magazine where he is paid by the word, or by the column inch, but a good editor would have removed it for redundancy, too.

I used to like to point out to my students the differences in journalism style and say, writing a paper for an English teacher. I've been both -- a newspaper/magazine writer and an English teacher, and it's fun to note what is acceptable/preferred in one case but not the other. What comes to mind is snytax -- computers hate mine -- use of commas and acronyms.

I thought your question was a good one, nem. Thanks, too, Drover for your clarification. A lot of what we do with English makes little or no sense. I recall a little ditty on plurals -- anyone recall the author?

If the plural of mouse is mice,and the plural of louse is lice,
Then why not the plural of spouse -- spice?

[nem]

Dear City-data-grammar members,

I am interested in cases of using interjections as predicates in the sentence.
Could you please give any instances - literature or live speech - if you know them or they come into your mind.
There are just few e.gs found by me in linguistic resources.

Thanks a lot,
Helen

[formercalifornian]

Hands down, this is the funniest thread I've ever read on C-D! I'm so glad to know that I'm not the only nit picker and compulsive proof reader.

In addition to all those bugaboos already discussed, here are my additions:

* irregardless, my hair stands on end at the mere sight of it;

* inflammable, completely redundant although widely accepted;

...and...

* in regards to, I want to stroke out whenever I hear this phrase.

[Ivorytickler]

I think the problem with grammar on sites like this is that people tend to write as they would talk in casual conversation. When I speak, there, their and they're all sound the same. The context indicates which I meant. I think people just pick one when typing on a BB. They also seem to use slang terms that they would never type in a paper they were submitting for a grade.

I don't think it means anything other than they give as much regard to posting here as they would casual conversation sitting on a park bench. The grammar police don't tend to critique our speach in casual conversation the way they do posting on a BB.