Are spelling and grammar lost arts?

[Kathryn]

I also don't like it when people say "He's the guy that wrote that song about the muskrats in love."

It should be "He's the guy WHO wrote that song about the muskrats in love."

 

[Skwim]

I also don't like it when people say "He's the guy that wrote that song about the muskrats in love."

It should be "He's the guy WHO wrote that song about the muskrats in love."

Speaking of "who," it would be nice if people used "who" and "whom" correctly. Not a biggie, but it would be nice.

 

[Kathryn]

As in, "I know for whom the bell tolls..."

Yes, very nice.

 

[Smoke]

And now that I'm onto that sort of thing (quotation marks to be specific), in case anyone is wondering (and I know they are - or SHOULD BE - because I see this in here all the time), when we put a period, question mark, comma, or exclamation point in a sentence that includes a word or phrase in quotation marks, the end mark goes INSIDE the quotation marks

Punctuation that appears in the original always goes inside the quotation marks.

A period or comma that doesn't appear in the original can be placed inside or outside the quotation marks with equal propriety. Inside is more American; outside is more British. Either is correct, though it might be better to pick one and stick with it -- which I don't seem to be able to do.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, well, speaking as an American, I'm sticking with the punctuation marks INSIDE the quotation marks. As you said in a roundabout way - consistency is KEY!

 

[Revoltingest]

I also don't like it when people say "He's the guy that wrote that song about the muskrats in love."

It should be "He's the guy WHO wrote that song about the muskrats in love."

Any sentence with "muskrats in love" in it is just plain wrong.

 

[Smoke]

I also don't like it when people say "He's the guy that wrote that song about the muskrats in love."

It should be "He's the guy WHO wrote that song about the muskrats in love."

I don't know if that is improper; the King James Version uses it this way. ("Blessed is the man that endureth temptation," for instance.) But I prefer your way.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, King James was an odd duck. But I digress.

 

[Skwim]

I don't know if that is improper; the King James Version uses it this way. ("Blessed is the man that endureth temptation," for instance.) But I prefer your way.

That should be reserved for all objects and creatures one doesn't consider to be remotely human, whereas who and whom should only be used for humans. And the NIV version of James 1:12 is "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial. . . ."

 

[Smoke]

That should be reserved for all objects and creatures one doesn't consider to be remotely human, whereas who and whom should only be used for humans.

I guess it's just an idiosyncrasy of mine, but I generally use "who" for all mammals. But I tend to think of all mammals as "people," though not human ones.

And the NIV version of James 1:12 is "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial. . . ."

I don't consider the NIV an authority for any purpose. But I do prefer "who."

 

[Peacewise]

Seems to me that using "that" in the context under discussion objectifies the person, as such I feel that "who" or "whom" is much better.
ah yeh, NIV is a much easier read compared to King james for me.

 

[Kathryn]

I like the King James version because I enjoy the poetic feel of it.

For easy reading that is also pleasing, I really like the Jerusalem Bible. It's a nice blend of past and present in my opinion, when it comes to language style.

 

[justbehappy]

Yours is not, but reading some people is a true and annoying challenge.

Well if mine was then I probably would just stick to basic grammar

 

[methylatedghosts]

My pet peeves---small ones---are the misuse of that and which, particularly when not punctuated correctly; and the use of different than instead of different from.

That's another I see a LOT!

Using then when meaning than, and vice versa.

EDIT: also alot instead of a lot. You don't write abucket, or aspade.

 

[Breathe]

Why don't we help people by making a thread to explain when one should use things such as who and whom, then and than, and so on.

Can we call it, "how to talk proper"?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Why don't we help people by making a thread to explain when one should use things such as who and whom, then and than, and so on.

Can we call it, "how to talk proper"?

I like "How to talk good and type good too"

 

[Kathryn]

How 'bout "U Kin Right Good 2"

 

[Breathe]

How to speek gooder English.

 

[MissAlice]

Having struggled in this area myself due to a learning disability, I can only reflect on my own personal experiences. It's a little hard for me to judge whether or not that person with bad grammar is lazy, comes from a poor education system, or has a learning disability. It's a frustration I personally have trouble grasping.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I tend to be this frustrated seeing bad posture, lack of connectedness in movement, and just general laziness in non-verbal communication. If someone tells me they're just naturally clumsy, or that alignment isn't all that important, I roll my eyes at the excuses.....take a flippin dance class! Learn some coordination and good posture!!

There never really has been any support for my rants, though.