"7 Bogus Grammar 'Errors' You Don't Need To Worry About"

[Skwim]

For those who may worry about such things. . . or just find it an interesting subject.

"National Grammar Day. Here are seven rules you really (really!) don't have to worry about following.
​

1. Don't split infinitives

2. Don't end a sentence with a preposition

3. Don't use "which" as a relative pronoun

4. Don't start a sentence with a conjunction

5. Don't use the passive voice

6. Don't neglect to use singular verbs

7. Don't use words to mean what they've been widely used to mean for 50 years or more
​

There's too much to be explained here, so for anyone interested, HERE is the Source and the explanation of each.

 

[Revoltingest]

Passive voice has its applications, but be very careful not to use it in business communication.
It signals weakness, lack of responsibility & poor style to many, especially those who read resumes.
(I hear'm carp about it regularly.)

Is #7 really a rule? Oh, it means don't use 50 year old definitions which aren't commonly used anymore.
I still won't use "enormity" to mean enormousness. (It still means heinous to me.)
Western civilization would collapse!

 

[Skwim]

Passive voice has its applications, but be very careful not to use it in business communication.
It signals weakness, lack of responsibility & poor style to many, especially those who read resumes.
(I hear'm carp about it regularly.)

Is #7 really a rule?

It's one I've never heard of, but evidently exists somewhere. The other six I am familiar with. The only place I've seen the passive voice preferred is in instruction manuals, but even there it doesn't seem to improve the prose.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's one I've never heard of, but evidently exists somewhere. The other six I am familiar with. The only place I've seen the passive voice preferred is in instruction manuals, but even there it doesn't seem to improve the prose.

I edited my post to clarify what #7 actually means (based on your link).
(Better phrasing by the writer would'a avoided the misunderstanding.)

 

[dust1n]

Some seem natural, but some I would never do. One, I probably wouldn't do. I'd rather say, "to go boldly where no..." Two, I don't think I could ever pull off. Unless I was writing a character in olden days, I'm not sure ending a sentence would anything more than clunky. Not familiar with 3, but I definitely don't see the problem. 4: Starting a sentence with a conjunction is essential, especially in non-fiction. But ultimately, it depends on how you like to pace your sentences and group your ideas. It's amazing how subtle differences in sentence construction can mean all the difference. 5 is fine, but it's a rhetorical device often times. And number 6, I'm familiar with the hoo-blah, and ultimately, I would always come down to using those Latin roots. The datum shows, the data show.
Today's agendum follows as such, this month's agenda follow as such. The media are harassing me. Or, I guess more so in artistic terms, the medium really elevates the concept behind the painting, the media elevate the concepts behind the paintings (assuming a different medium is used). It's classy.

I think, ultimately, the situation in which one is writing is going to have its own appropriate manner. In a scholarly work, or a news article, one follows specific rules about succinctness and reference. In a work of fiction, one can play with grammar and punctuation in incredible ways. However, what ultimately makes sense when read, and what reads natural to whatever audience relates to the author, than it works.

 

[Valjean]

One through six I'm OK with, but number seven covers a lot of ground. When one of these newfangled usages is clearly absurd, unnecessary or deleterious to the language I usually avoid it.

 

[dust1n]

The only place I've seen the passive voice preferred is in instruction manuals, but even there it doesn't seem to improve the prose.

Yea, I can imagine myself running into the need of it often... I even have difficultly thinking of a character who uses it other than a bureaucrat.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yea, I can imagine myself running into the need of it often... I even have difficultly thinking of a character who uses it other than a bureaucrat.

Where Mrs Rev works, if someone submits a resume with passive
voice, it goes into the circular file. This happens regularly.
Remember that, job seekers!

 

[Skwim]

Where Mrs Rev works, if someone submits a resume with passive
voice, it goes into the circular file. This happens regularly.
Remember that, job seekers!

At least if you're applying for a job where Mrs Rev works.

 

[Jainarayan]

Split infinitives are perfectly fine in English. In fact they're sometimes required. It's the nature of English's workings.

Ending a sentence with a preposition, such as Winston Churchill's wry (and apocryphal?) response: "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put" mocked, is not what it may seem. Mr. Churchill apparently was aware that "put up with" is a verbal phrase and is not ending in a preposition (two no less! ). "Up" and "with" are not prepositions in this case, but part of the verbal phrase "to put up with", an alternate for "to tolerate".

Spinster grammarians wearing their hair in a bun get their girdles knotted too tightly over starting sentences with conjunctions. However, (omg! I just used a conjunction) a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence can continue a thought that even a semi-colon would make unwieldy. But I digress.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least if you're applying for a job where Mrs Rev works.

Yes. But it wouldn't be the only place. I could tolerate it on a resume, but I'd train them to avoid it.
But then...I hire more entry level types, rather than experienced executives/managers who should know better.
It always pays to know your audience, & write specifically for them.

 

[Secret Chief]

Of course America and the UK speak different languages...

An example from the linked article: 'I could care less.'

To a British person this is simply nonsensical. Trust me, it is...

 

[Sunstone]

Of course America and the UK speak different languages...

An example from the linked article: 'I could care less.'

To a British person this is simply nonsensical. Trust me, it is...

I'm not much of a fan of "I could care less" either.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not much of a fan of "I could care less" either.

Yeah, I couldn't care less about it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I could care less. If ESL first year folks can usually get the end message across, then that's good enough for me. Spend some time in a country where the masses are non-English, and you just want to know where the toilet is, and you learn to appreciate any English at all, let alone the proper variety.

 

[Revoltingest]

"I couldn't care less." makes the most sense.
But "I could care less." as spoken by Jackie Mason with a rising inflection on the final word would make perfect sense too.

 

[Jainarayan]

This may be a reach, but "I could care less" could mean that the issue is so inconsequential that if I wanted to care even less than I do, I could. "I could care (even) less (than I already do). As I said, a reach.

Btw, is it "like I said" or "as I said"?

 

[Vinayaka]

English? Do you get it, or does it get you?

 

[Jainarayan]

Got English?

English is not really that hard to speak. It's actually pretty easy given its relative lack of inflection and verb conjugation. What is hard is that spelling and writing has not kept pace with pronunciation. Knife was pronounced k-neef-eh; light, leekht (the 'kht' as in Bach or loch); night, neekht; knight, k-neekht; mice, meeseh. Then the Great Vowel Shift occurred and it all went to hell in a handbasket. It's not even so much a problem that English has lost almost all its case markers and inflections. Anglo-Saxon,i.e. Old English was fairly highly inflected. To bring English literature in line with the spoken language would be not only an exercise in futility, but a nightmare to attempt. We would not be able to read anything.

 

[Secret Chief]

I couldn't care more.