Okay, I HAVE to say this... Toe vs Tow the Line

[ladypuglover]

As someone who doesn't have LD but just doesn't particularly give a rat's rear end- I support this message.

I hope the others aren’t too harsh on us for not towing the line... :twisted:

YES!

[ladypuglover]

My swiss cheese education makes it hard but I still try to correct my writing skills. I am always learning, that is the main thing. But I do find it hard to not correct others when I see they wrote loose in place of lose or and instead of an. Then I remember I totaly suck at writing what I want to say in a clear and concise myself and that helps in giving everyone else a free pass.

[LilMissMetaphor]

Gotta side with the grammar Nazi's on this one.

No apostrophe.

[ThisOlGirl]

If we were all perfect, we couldn't make references to "riffles"!

[Buzzard]

Pretty sure I'm the source of the error. I have been thoroughly chastised and have "lernt" my lesson.

[StarrieEyedKat]

No apostrophe.

:lol: That was awesome.

[xDreamerx]

No.

I agree with Bananacat, language evoles through speech and vernacular, that's how use and diction comes to change over time. Written language is one of the influences that slows language change, oral tradition leads to rapid change.

Though, I was an offender of this particular expression because I assumed it was something nautical and that "towing" the line was referring to hauling rope, pulling rope and lines back onto boats. I also used to think it was "One foul swoop" as opposed to "one fell swoop" until I looked it up because people pronounce it foul. I assumed it refered to something rotten, not falconing and hawking etc.

[mnb357]

Re: Okay, I HAVE to say this...

ETA: However, this isn't the most annoying grammar flub to me. The grammar mistake that annoys me the most is when people confuse "their," "they're" and "there."

Freyacat,

I'm on a mission to stamp out apostrophe abuse. At this point, I'd be happy if people would realize that it generally isn't necessary to use an apostrophe when pluralizing.

Also, I really hate the way Josh and Anna use "I" when they need "me," as in, "That's between Anna and I." That really pisses me off, particularly because I get the feeling he thinks he sounds so smart when he uses "I" incorrectly. He also abuses the word "myself" mercilessly too. Jerk.

[Kitten]

It has become an idiomatic expression, so both versions are acceptable. If you know what the person means, it's right. That's how language works.

Uh, no. If I say "Your feet stinks" over and over and over, you know perfectly well what I mean, but it is not "right" or correct or acceptable, and it never will be, no matter how often I say it. If I use a German construction in an English sentence, such "The cow over the fence she jumps," you know exactly what I mean, but as a native English speaker, you would never use that construction yourself.

I wasn't trying to be a grammar Nazi, and I ignore dozens of spelling and grammar mistakes I see every day, but this particular one was being used by enough people that it finally just tipped my grammar meter into the red zone. Some days I'm amused (riffles); some days I think it warrants a post.

If you get offended because someone corrects your grammar, please don't ever try to learn a foreign language. One of the most useful things a native speaker can do is not just to accept a poorly worded sentence (because s/he "knows what I meant"), but to say, oh, did you know that the correct way to say that is xxx...? That's how we learn. I actually like to be corrected, because I don't want anyone to be able to guess that I am not a native speaker.

That said, I apologize for offending anyone, however inadvertent. Obviously, not all share my enthusiasm for languages. If I have future comments on grammar, I'll confine them to the other board.

[Goyangi]

There is nothing that I write that I do not read over for grammar or spelling errors. Okay, maybe my shopping lists...I can never remember how to spell broccoli...but, in that context, I resist the urge to check the dictionary.

I think it's probably unfair, but people do judge other people by their spelling and grammar. Usually, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt but if I have to re-read a post more than once to figure out what they are saying, I'm going to assume the person is, at best, lazy or, at worst, kind of stupid. Honestly, I'd like to think that America is not producing stupider and stupider people, but, frankly, I find it difficult to take any teenager who seems incapable of writing complete words seriously in any intellectual sense.

I think I'm a descriptivist when it comes to speech and a prescriptivist when it come to writing. Believe me, I do not speak the way I write. I mumble, swallow consonants, elongate vowels, use slang and screw up my syntax. In my regional dialect, we have a tendency to drop the infinitive with the verb "need." I still will occasionally say such gems as "The lawn needs mowed." But I would never drop the infinitive in my writing unless I was writing dialogue.

Honestly, I think the real issue is that people don't read. Because they don't read, they only hear sayings like "for all intents and purposes" or "toe the line" and, since we pick up all sorts of sayings without knowing their origins, they just spell them the way they sound. I mean, can anyone really defend "take it for granite?" (unless the writer has mistakenly identified Corian counter tops or something.)

Okay, rant over.

(I realize I sound like a cranky old person but, honestly, I'm only 30.)

[xDreamerx]

But that's an issue of subject/verb agreement which does actually change the meaning of the grammatical information encoded in the sentence. Idomatic expressions, synecdoches, metaphors, and other parts of speech are intended to be treated this way. The simple fact is, the meaning and useage of language does change over time, often through a concensus in the vernacular. If enough people use it, it becomes common place. Language is not and has never been static. If one looks at the OED and look up the origin of a word and various uses over time one will see a great deal of change. I wanted to avoid using a contentious example, but this was the first that came to mind. The word "faggot" used to refer to a bundle of sticks used for kindling. In the Victorian age a "faggot" party was a little show one put on in the palor with games and skits. We all know how it's used now.

But beyond just nouns, the rules of a grammar are not standard either. For example, in the Middle Ages it was perfectly acceptable to use double negatives (or tripple negatives and so forth) as well as to say things like, "She is taller than me." or to end sentences with prepositions. It was only in the 18th Century the Prescriptivists came along and began to write grammar mannuals and the dictionary was born. American English was deliberately changed in the face of republicanism. To say that grammar is absolute and unchanging is just simply not true.

Edit: Someone posted below me just now about the Oxford coma and that lead me to another point. Here in Canada we do sometimes still use the Oxford coma and we generally use older forums of English than they do in England. This is common in former colonies who were/are loyalists. They develop a traditionalist attitude towards language and make efforts to conserve it. We still say secretary and monastary like 'sec-cre-tary' and 'mon-nas-tary' whereas in England it's become 'sec-cr-try' and 'monas-try'. We do have a lot of American influence as well, but we're kind of a hybrid and we have a couple of unique vowel articulations that don't exist in the rest of North American English. The history and politics of a country influences its language.

[mirele]

Bare-faced liar versus bold-faced liar. Apparently the first one has a slightly older history, but the second one actually makes sense (someone who boldly, brazenly, flat-out lies with no compunction).

Some friends and I were chatting last night about how Oxford has dropped the so-called "Oxford comma," which was the last comma before the word "and" in a list of items.

Example: I bought tomatoes, potatoes, and carrots. (The Oxford comma is before "and.")

I went to journalism school and that comma before "and" was a HUGE no-no. It still is in writing technical reports. We discussed some ambiguous uses of "and" with the comma, but I said that if I ran into a situation like that, I'd reword the sentence first before sending in a report with the comma before and, because it is frowned upon.

[Guest Anonymous]

I just do not want this board to become like others I have been on where the grammar nitpickers rule. That happens on all sorts of forums and is unpleasant for everyone except those who have appointed themselves the grammar hand-slappers.

We have a Grammar topic in "chatter", actually, so I'm not complaining that it's being discussed. I was trying to convey that I hope we do not start a new thread every time someone wants to air a grammar or spelling grievance (no offense to the OP, I'm just talking generally here). Also, in the middle of a discussion thread, hand-slapping posts to correct the grammar/spelling of other people are not necessary and frankly, pretty rude, even if the it's-its-it is thing really, really bothers you. We are all adults here and this is not 5th grade language arts class.

Yes, people should spell things correctly (spell check is a start) and re-read to make sure that their post says what they intended. But everybody makes mistakes, too.

I agree, completely.

[erunerune]

I like puffins!

[Witsec6]

No apostrophe.

Miss Metaphor, will you gay marry me?

[bananacat]

It has become an idiomatic expression, so both versions are acceptable. If you know what the person means, it's right. That's how language works.

Uh, no. If I say "Your feet stinks" over and over and over, you know perfectly well what I mean, but it is not "right" or correct or acceptable, and it never will be, no matter how often I say it. If I use a German construction in an English sentence, such "The cow over the fence she jumps," you know exactly what I mean, but as a native English speaker, you would never use that construction yourself.

I wasn't trying to be a grammar Nazi, and I ignore dozens of spelling and grammar mistakes I see every day, but this particular one was being used by enough people that it finally just tipped my grammar meter into the red zone. Some days I'm amused (riffles); some days I think it warrants a post.

If you get offended because someone corrects your grammar, please don't ever try to learn a foreign language. One of the most useful things a native speaker can do is not just to accept a poorly worded sentence (because s/he "knows what I meant"), but to say, oh, did you know that the correct way to say that is xxx...? That's how we learn. I actually like to be corrected, because I don't want anyone to be able to guess that I am not a native speaker.

That said, I apologize for offending anyone, however inadvertent. Obviously, not all share my enthusiasm for languages. If I have future comments on grammar, I'll confine them to the other board.

The only way to determine what is "right" is what based on what you learned growing up, so it seems traditional or historical to you. But the language that you think is perfectly correct would make English speakers from a century ago roll over in their graves. Language changes over time, and there is no such thing as language purity. Is there no authority to hand down what is correct, nor is there any objective standard for what is correct, except what is commonly used. It's not like math or science. What's considered correct now was considered horrifyingly wrong when people first started using it. You really should look up descriptivism on Wikipedia, or educate yourself about the history of language. In fact, the very reason that we even have different languages is because older languages changed and diverged over time. The only way to determine what's right is by what is commonly used, so as more people use the "wrong" way, it eventually becomes right. There is no other way to determine what counts as right.

And FYI, I know all of this because I have learned 3 foreign languages (French, Spanish, and German). And guess what? If you speak those languages properly, you will be lost in the real world because those languages also have their own changes from what is "correct". So you can speak perfectly proper Spanish and nobody will understand you, or you can use the terms that actual people actually use and then you might get somewhere.

[Kitten]

Don't want to get in a cat fight :D , but while I am perfectly aware of the evolution of language, substituting a completely different word in a phrase just isn't ever going to be "right." Tow and toe have two completely different definitions, and just because they're homophones, you can't replace one with the other.

On an aside: do you think fundies are allowed to learn the term "homophone," or is that defrauding?

FWIW, I speak several languages as well, and staying current on idioms and slang doesn't exclude knowing/using proper terminology in the appropriate situations. Just as I wouldn't walk into an interview saying "how's it hangin'?," I'm equally unlikely to greet a friend with "A pleasure to meet you today!"

Anyway, I'll agree to disagree and end this discussion. ;) Cheers!

[Kitten]

Oxford coma

Now that's a typo I can fully support! :lol: I have often felt like I was in a coma when trying to edit material full of Oxford commas...

[Shoobydoo]

There is nothing that I write that I do not read over for grammar or spelling errors. Okay, maybe my shopping lists...I can never remember how to spell broccoli...but, in that context, I resist the urge to check the dictionary.

I think it's probably unfair, but people do judge other people by their spelling and grammar. Usually, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt but if I have to re-read a post more than once to figure out what they are saying, I'm going to assume the person is, at best, lazy or, at worst, kind of stupid. Honestly, I'd like to think that America is not producing stupider and stupider people, but, frankly, I find it difficult to take any teenager who seems incapable of writing complete words seriously in any intellectual sense.

I think I'm a descriptivist when it comes to speech and a prescriptivist when it come to writing. Believe me, I do not speak the way I write. I mumble, swallow consonants, elongate vowels, use slang and screw up my syntax. In my regional dialect, we have a tendency to drop the infinitive with the verb "need." I still will occasionally say such gems as "The lawn needs mowed." But I would never drop the infinitive in my writing unless I was writing dialogue.

Honestly, I think the real issue is that people don't read. Because they don't read, they only hear sayings like "for all intents and purposes" or "toe the line" and, since we pick up all sorts of sayings without knowing their origins, they just spell them the way they sound. I mean, can anyone really defend "take it for granite?" (unless the writer has mistakenly identified Corian counter tops or something.)

Okay, rant over.

(I realize I sound like a cranky old person but, honestly, I'm only 30.)

This! Written language ad spoken language are completely different things. Thanks to the influence of the internet, I would go so far as to say that there's actually two types of written language. Formal written language, like what you'd see in a book or newspaper, and informal written language, like what you see in a forum post. What I write on a forum usually has atrocious grammar, because I write forum posts pretty much the same way I speak. When writing fiction, however, I use a much more formal tone. One of my huge pet peeves is when people use informal writing for something that's supposed to be taken seriously as a work or literature or nonfiction. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are or how grand your plot is, if you can not be bothered to correct grammar for something you intend to PUBLISH, I simply will not respect your work.

Like Goyangi says, this has a lot to do with the fact that people don't read as much anymore. So many people simply do not have any idea what good formal written English looks or sounds like. If you don't believe that, walk into any college classroom and read a few student papers. I'll bet my savings account that you'll be able to tell within 5 sentences which students read frequently and which don't.

[clarinetpower]

When I lived in France, people would consider it insulting to *not* correct my mistakes. They assume you don't want to be seen as an idiot, so they are helping you by pointing out your errors. I will never use the wrong article when referring to a water carafe again, thanks to a waiter near the Préfecture who corrected me on that. :)

But in America, it's hard to now which line to toe/tow. :dance:

[Kitten]

Me Speak Pretty One Day - by David Sedaris.

If you haven't read it, buy it/download it NOW and prepare for a good laugh...

[xDreamerx]

This! Written language ad spoken language are completely different things. Thanks to the influence of the internet, I would go so far as to say that there's actually two types of written language. Formal written language, like what you'd see in a book or newspaper, and informal written language, like what you see in a forum post. What I write on a forum usually has atrocious grammar, because I write forum posts pretty much the same way I speak. When writing fiction, however, I use a much more formal tone. One of my huge pet peeves is when people use informal writing for something that's supposed to be taken seriously as a work or literature or nonfiction. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are or how grand your plot is, if you can not be bothered to correct grammar for something you intend to PUBLISH, I simply will not respect your work.

Like Goyangi says, this has a lot to do with the fact that people don't read as much anymore. So many people simply do not have any idea what good formal written English looks or sounds like. If you don't believe that, walk into any college classroom and read a few student papers. I'll bet my savings account that you'll be able to tell within 5 sentences which students read frequently and which don't.

I disagree. Formal language is no longer a requirement of fiction, non fiction or poetry and hasn't been since the birth of postmodernism. Read the Beats, or Kerouac or Hunter S. Thompson. All great examples. Edit: Well I would argue this began with Modernists and High Modernists, especially Stein. Everyone should read her. She truly was a genius.

[LilMissMetaphor]

Miss Metaphor, will you gay marry me?

You could be my piece on the side, maybe.

[bionicmlle]

You know, I really could care less.

(OMG I hate that one..... drives me BONKERS!!)

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm kind of a stickler for spelling and grammar, but I'm definitely guilty of flubbing both on this board - it's informal, so I'm not as careful and I don't thoroughly edit what I write, nor do I expect others to. That said, I think there's definitely a difference between the odd typo or misplaced apostrophe and a completely wrong word or phrase, because IMO if you're going to take the time to write an idea or response, you should do what you can to ensure clarity.

I am saddened by the fact that the majority of people nowadays seem to care so little about the way in which they write, because very sloppy spelling and grammar absolutely reflects on the writer. IME, the absolute worst place for bad spelling is on free classified sites - here's a real gem I found a few minutes ago: "Hi I have a childrens nike that I am selling for 20.00$ Traning wheels come with it but are not on it. In Exalant shape only rode a few times. Please email me." I'm not saying someone selling a bike needs to worry about the Oxford comma, but come on - they didn't even spell "bike" correctly. My real pet peeve, though, is "dinning table". Like, are they selling it because it's too noisy?

I kind of think it correlates to how much people read. If they rarely see the words written down, how are they to know they're not spelled exactly as they sound?

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I DO have a learning disability, not that I think that changes anything.