As in, doesn’t matter at all to you.
A slight tangent into spelling, but I think “milktoast” is perfectly evocative of the idea the user is trying to get across.
This is the only comment in this entire threat I agree with so far
I’m fine with “free reign” and “beckon call” because the meaning is retained and language evolves.
I feel like “free reign” means the same thing as “free rein” anyway. As in you’re not shackled in your rule; a despot. “He has free reign over his domain.”
The right to gleefully split infinitives.
Adverbs as a rule can go anywhere in a sentence, so split away, I say!
Anything logical…
Grammar is less rules that we have to follow and more a description of what people are using.
So when shit doesn’t make sense, we should all just agree that’s dumb and switch.
End a sentence with a preposition if you want to. And start one with a conjunction.
That’s not just you, that’s people who know the rules of the English language and don’t care about Latin or what dead idiots thought.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with
Gotta love Merriam Webster. They are fantastic.
I like ending my sentences with and.
deleted by creator
Putting question marks or exclamation points after “quotation marks”! I’ve never understood the point of putting the punctuation inside the quotation unless it’s part of the quotation itself.
This is how you’re supposed to do it in Dutch.
The teacher said “silence!”.
Vs
The teacher said “silence”!
Mean something completely different. Although a few large literature publishers do punctuation before bracket because of translation ease, and novels almost never contain partial quotes anyway AND they include the optional comma at all times, which causes
“Silence!,” said the teacher.
Shudder
For me it depends on if you are quoting someone (punctuation inside quote) or just using a phrase like “woke” (punctuation outside).
Especially also when you’re using them to be facetious.
He’s “talented”.
He’s “talented.”
Quote is full sentence: inside. Quote is part of sentence or word: outside.
Eg:
“Oh no!” he gasped.
And
Apparently she’s “done with me”!
Love, an editor.
I really like to write ‘gonna.’
I’m never gonna give it up.
I spells it like I says it
I don’t care if people say “chomping at the bit”, because it basically means the same thing as “champing at the bit”, and nobody uses the word champing anymore anyway.
Mooses and gooses
Moosepodes and goosepodes
Goosepodes nuts
I really like when non-native speakers say persons.
Regularisation goes brrrr.
Moosen
Moos and goos
The one thing I will insist on is the use of is/are. It’s pretty simple, if referring to a countable set, use “are”. E.g. there are four turtles in my sewer. You would not say “there are too much shit on this webpage”, because that shit is uncountable.
How do you feel when there’s a contraction? Would you be okay with There’s four turtles in my sewer or would you insist on There’re four turtles in my sewer?
I only insist on this point of grammar for myself and to my kid, who is still young enough to need instruction on grammar.
As a matter of style, I don’t prefer there’re in written form, but it’s fine spoken. But yes, I do stand on the point even with contractions.
Some things work differently between dialects of English. For example “the band is” (it is) vs “the band are” (they are).
There are vague cases. A band could be a singular entity or a group of countable members, and whichever you use would come with a shading of connotation about that. “The band are all upset about this deal… The band isn’t taking its roadies for granted.”
There are too many shit on this webpage.
I used to get yelled at mid-sentence by a parent for incorrect grammar, and used to do the same to others as a result. I’ve mostly recovered. I still find imprecision irksome but, if everyone understands, I don’t think it’s a big deal.
I still think certain formal situations warrant proper grammar and spelling (from native speakers at least), such as a CV for a professional job.
outside of like academic settings, anything should go. check out the previous sentence where i inserted an unnecessary “like” as an example. it reflects my train of thought and i type as i think. same thing should go for slang and stuff, if the best way to get your point across is with ideas that have not been accepted by the academic world then that’s totally skibidi tubular, man.
By some standards, the Oxford comma is still incorrect grammar. I’ll die on the hill that it has utility, and I’m glad it’s becoming more of a commonly accepted convention.
Alright, which standards? Show your work or else I’m a call you a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Can check style guides for publications and academic institutions in the UK, Australia, and the like. BBC, ABC, etc. Back in the day it was simply considered wrong, now most non-US publications and academic institutions simply advise not using it unless it helps avoid ambiguity. E.g. the excerpt below from the ABC style guide:
Oxford comma, serial comma
A comma placed before the last item in a list: she ate grapes, toast, and cheese. Avoid unless it aids the reader or prevents ambiguity.
American style guides are generally more in favor of the Oxford comma. APA mandates it, MLA says do whatever makes sense, and Chicago says pick one and stick to it.
Have to / need to - At some point in my 20s it was pointed out to me that “need to” is the correct phrase and that “have to” isn’t correct. But actually “have to” is used in both English and Spanish “tengo que” which is “have to” or technically “have that”. Grammatically, if “have” is a state of being then “have to” is like a state of being with a direction or target implied.
While I might use them interchangeably, as a non-native I would think “need to” is supposed to mean that the situation came out of necessity, such as feeling the need to pee or resorting to selling your car because of an empty wallet, while “have to” is more like the result of some rules or discipline, such as showing up to work in time - but I understand that the line between the two can be rather blurry.
As for my thing: there are a few shortened words in my language (similarly to the English “hubby”, “preggo”, etc.) that got shortened according to pronunciation, and not the original (longer) word, having a different spelling at the start (as if “circle” got shortened to “circ”, but spelled as “cirk”). It feels like a kid came up with the spelling, and now it’s the official form. It’s bugging my inner spelling nazi every time I see it.
Relatedly, it really bugs me out when I’m watching English-language media from outside North America and someone says “what are we meant to do” in a situation where I would say “what are we supposed to do”. Like, a lot. Best I can figure, it implies to me a sort of outside intention driving one’s actions, as opposed to the mere regard implied by “supposed”, and my anti-authoritarian ass rankles at that.
Anyone else have feelings about this one?
Wow. Do you know the feeling when someone brings your attention to something that you had been ignoring pretty much all your life, and from that point it drives you mad every single time? Yeah, you have just done that with the meant to/supposed to thing. You’re SO totally right! Aaaand you cursed me.
