Just Being Pedantic...

[Poboy kartman]

Contractions have apostrophes. Abbreviations do not.

Typographical error is abbreviated to typo with no apostrophe. Two of them would be typos.

A contraction is a word resulting from the joining of two words with an apostrophe to replace the missing letters. Would have becomes would've, can not becomes can't, and it is becomes it's.

A plural abbreviated word does not have an apostrophe, unless you can come up with an example where there is also a contraction in it somewhere, or if it has a possessive ending with an apostrophe-s.

I have to go with Fabroman on this one While there is a group of people who are adamant about abbreviations being pluralised without apostrophes, there is another group that staunchly defends it as proper practice. I personally prefer apostrophes with abbreviations because it removes any chance of confusion as to whether it's plural or the s is just another letter in the abbreviation. How do you pluralise n ? Only one way-n's, ns doesn't work.

Here's one that is a little bit different: I have a Henrys rifle. What do I have if I have two? Thank God there's only one Texas, I don't think I could stand it if there were two Texases. eseseses.lol.

You're right about this Fabroman. I think one reason is that people don't really watch what they're doing when they're typing. Then instead of reading their posts again, they hit Spell check and when no errors are shown think it's good. Know what I mean?

Now the same thing FUBAR but immune to detection by Spell check:

Your write about these Fabroman. Eye thank won reason is that purple done really witch watt their due in when there typing. Than instead of reeding they're posts a gain, them hit Spell check and when know arrows or shone, think it good. No watt eye mein?

 

[landuse]

Lol

 

[OzFab]

You're right about this Fabroman. I think one reason is that people don't really watch what they're doing when they're typing. Then instead of reading their posts again, they hit Spell check and when no errors are shown think it's good. Know what I mean?

Now the same thing FUBAR but immune to detection by Spell check:

Your write about these Fabroman. Eye thank won reason is that purple done really witch watt their due in when there typing. Than instead of reeding they're posts a gain, them hit Spell check and when know arrows or shone, think it good. No watt eye mein?

...& just to prove a point, I ran that paragraph through a spell checker & it picked out mein (nice try Doug ) Fabroman (of course, it's a made up word & a name) & the first sentence was "fragmented"

 

[Orange Krate]

We had an old guy here who always used to say, "I HAD rather..." instead of I WOULD rather...

 

[OzFab]

I can understand that one:
The contraction of "I had" is I'd.
The contraction of "I would" is I'd.

 

[Doc Sprocket]

Here's a favourite of mine-

"I'll find out whether or not I can go." Whether implies not. "Whether or not" is a redundancy. "I'll find out whether I can go" would be proper, yet it seems that 90% of the population cannot get through this without "or not". Drives me nuts!

One my grandmother used to use*- "irregardless". As in "I'm going to do it irregardless of the consequences." Again, a redundancy, a double-negative, even. Regardless, being without regard. Irregardless would be without lack of regard. Whut? LOL

*Speaking of used to- "I'm not used to doing it that way". Simple enough statement. Yet, it seems to invariably be presented as, "I'm not use to, etc". Aargh!

 

[robbie]

Here's a favourite of mine-

"I'll find out whether or not I can go." Whether implies not. "Whether or not" is a redundancy. "I'll find out whether I can go" would be proper, yet it seems that 90% of the population cannot get through this without "or not". Drives me nuts!

When I took the oral and practical exam to be an aircraft mechanic in Dallas my test was administered by a guy who apparently didn't even know the word "whether". He always used the word "rather" instead, and he never said "or not". He would stretch the entire idiom to include both possibilities in their entirety. For instance: "I don't know rather you want to eat burritos for lunch, or rather you want to eat hamburgers."

I grew up in Texas but don't have a Texas accent because in my home town (McAllen) most people have a Midwest accent or a Mexican accent. Oddly enough, the people in the hick town where I live now sound more southern and drawly than the people in south Texas. My sons have a hard time understanding some of the native speakers around here.

When I was a kid in school the textbooks always showed numerous examples of incorrect grammar and phrasing, and I wondered who in the world would say such ridiculous things. When I moved to Missouri I learned the answer to that question.

 

[Poboy kartman]

...& just to prove a point, I ran that paragraph through a spell checker & it picked out mein (nice try Doug ) Fabroman (of course, it's a made up word & a name) & the first sentence was "fragmented"

I got this forum and my second favorite forum mixed up. The other forum has Spell Check as an option besides Preview Post. I couldn't run a Spell Check so I took my chances.

Fabroman is a made up name? Obviously it would be flagged by Spell Check, but would be correct when inspected.

I threw "mein" in at the last moment and I knew it was iffy without "lo".

Not all Spell Check programs would pick up fragmented sentences (I think most wouldn't. )

So I don't have Spell Check when I post here. Fourtunatchly, Im a purty goud speiler.

Anyway, I think I made my point how a lot of these misused words get into posts sometimes by people who know better.

 

[robbie]

I have to go with Fabroman on this one While there is a group of people who are adamant about abbreviations being pluralised without apostrophes, there is another group that staunchly defends it as proper practice. I personally prefer apostrophes with abbreviations because it removes any chance of confusion as to whether it's plural or the s is just another letter in the abbreviation. How do you pluralise n ? Only one way-n's, ns doesn't work.

I believe you are referring to acronyms rather than abbreviations. In the case of an acronym the letters are capitalized, whereas the letter S to indicate the plural is not.

Traditionally if you are referring to a single letter in a written sentence you spell the name of the letter as an entire word. If you look in a good dictionary you will see the name of each letter spelled out as a word. Following this practice you would have multiple enns. Obviously the overwhelming majority of people do not recognize this as being correct today, and they probably wouldn't even know what you were talking about if you sent them an email with that word in it.

 

[robbie]

Here's another one that bugs me when I hear it. You might say "The problem is a lack of communication," or you might say "What the problem is is a lack of communication."

In the first sentence the subject of the sentence is the noun "problem". In the second sentence the subject is the dependent clause "what the problem is," which acts as a noun. For those who are wondering, both sentences are grammatically correct.

This option can cause trouble for people who don't understand grammatical construction, including my wife. She tends to omit the word "what" but leave both verbs. Her result: "The problem is is a lack of communication," with a slight accent on the first "is". This starts to sound really stupid when the dependent clause expresses the past tense, as in "The problem was is a lack of communication."

I try not to let this kind of thing bother me. There are lots of skills to be mastered, but most people really apply themselves to only a few in a lifetime. I've never learned to lay bricks like a pro, and I'm not much of a baseball player. This is understandable because people have interests and we don't spend time on what doesn't interest us. I have learned that my wife is simply not interested in grammar, so I don't bug her about it. Truthfully, I used to bug her about it but I wasn't getting any results so I stopped. I correct her most egregious errors when our sons are present, though. Just yesterday my wife was putting "steering wheel fluid" in the car, and my 15 year old son repeated that misnomer, so I told him he should call it power steering fluid if he wanted to be taken seriously. My wife said "But it's cute when I say it, right?" I said "Yeah, right."

20 years ago I heard her say something like "They gave Jane and I a ride to the movies" and I told her that would be "Jane and me". She actually argued with me, which I thought was funny because it should be obvious. You would never say "They gave I a ride to the movies," so why should putting Jane in the car make a difference? She told me that the nuns in her school were adamant that whenever you are referring to yourself and any other person you use the word I instead of me, regardless of where it occurs in the sentence. I told her that these nuns were obviously unqualified to teach grammar. The weird thing is that they managed to win. My wife always makes that same error, even though I correct it for the benefit of our kids when they are present. Those nuns created a problem in just a few semesters that I haven't been able to fix in 21 years.

 

[OzFab]

Just yesterday my wife was putting "steering wheel fluid" in the car, and my 15 year old son repeated that misnomer, so I told him he should call it power steering fluid if he wanted to be taken seriously. My wife said "But it's cute when I say it, right?" I said "Yeah, right."

Being a woman, she can get probably away with it (no, I'm not calling your wife dumb but, most mechanics would have a giggle about it) but, I can't see it being "cute" when your son goes to the mechanic asking for "steering wheel fluid"

Those nuns created a problem in just a few semesters that I haven't been able to fix in 21 years.

Old habits die hard my friend

 

[machinist@large]

Those nuns created a problem in just a few semesters that I haven't been able to fix in 21 years.

Interesting; I'm in the same position as your wife on this. Furthermore, I actually was used as an example of how to properly use it when I was starting college; my instructor was adamant that ..."Jane and I".... is the correct form of the sentence, and marked anyone who used the equivalent of "Jane and me" as incorrect.

This is why I look at arguments about who is right or wrong when it comes to the more obscure parts of the English language as being a lot like the argument over witch is better, Coca Cola or Pepsi; and just about as relevant.

 

[robbie]

Interesting; I'm in the same position as your wife on this. Furthermore, I actually was used as an example of how to properly use it when I was starting college; my instructor was adamant that ..."Jane and I".... is the correct form of the sentence, and marked anyone who used the equivalent of "Jane and me" as incorrect.

This is why I look at arguments about who is right or wrong when it comes to the more obscure parts of the English language as being a lot like the argument over witch is better, Coca Cola or Pepsi; and just about as relevant.

If language were completely arbitrary with no structure I would agree with you, but there are grammatical rules that make sense to those who understand them. However, incorrect grammar causes no tangible problems. Its only effect is to annoy those who understand correct grammar. Therefore, in a logical sense there really is correct and incorrect grammar, but in regards to practical effect the Coke vs Pepsi analogy is accurate.

The practice of using "Jane and I" as the direct or indirect object instead of "Jane and me" results from hypercorrection, which is the adherence to an imagined rule for the purpose of not sounding stupid. A lot of hicks have said "Me and Billy-Bob brung the beer for the party." As a result a lot of people think that any phrase involving me and anybody else must be incorrect because it makes the speaker sound like a hick, including the correct usage, as in "They gave Jane and me a ride to the movies." The substitution of "I" in the place of "me" sounds more sophisticated to the average person, including your instructor. To a person who understands grammatical structure it sounds pretentious and ignorant. Your college instructor, like my wife's schoolteachers, was a pretentious and ignorant buffoon who abused the authority of his position and misled a lot of students.

 

[machinist@large]

If language were completely arbitrary with no structure I would agree with you, but there are grammatical rules that make sense to those who understand them. However, incorrect grammar causes no tangible problems. Its only effect is to annoy those who understand correct grammar. Therefore, in a logical sense there really is correct and incorrect grammar, but in regards to practical effect the Coke vs Pepsi analogy is accurate.

The practice of using "Jane and I" as the direct or indirect object instead of "Jane and me" results from hypercorrection, which is the adherence to an imagined rule for the purpose of not sounding stupid. A lot of hicks have said "Me and Billy-Bob brung the beer for the party." As a result a lot of people think that any phrase involving me and anybody else must be incorrect because it makes the speaker sound like a hick, including the correct usage, as in "They gave Jane and me a ride to the movies." The substitution of "I" in the place of "me" sounds more sophisticated to the average person, including your instructor. To a person who understands grammatical structure it sounds pretentious and ignorant. Your college instructor, like my wife's schoolteachers, was a pretentious and ignorant buffoon who abused the authority of his position and misled a lot of students.

I'm not going to try arguing the point because "Me" or "I" is pretty much a Coke versus Pepsi issue to me; personally, I worry a whole lot more about my math and geometry skills, because they actually have an impact on my life industry.

One point I will argue with you about was my instructor. She was not pretentious, or arrogant, and definitely not ignorant. I've only had two English teacher in my life that I actually liked and respected (actually three, now that I think about it, but she wasn't just our English teacher; in the private school where I started, in that grade the only subject she didn't teach was Math. She and another teacher swapped classes with each other for Math & English). The rest of them did fit your description.

I going to let this particular issue go ("I" vs "Me"). If I see something else I might chime in.

 

[OzFab]

I'm not going to try arguing the point because "Me" or "I" is pretty much a Coke versus Pepsi issue to me

IMO, it's apples & oranges; the "me vs I" argument comes down to rules & structure; the "Coke vs Pepsi" argument comes down to personal choice

 

[Poboy kartman]

LOL. I went to Catholic school for the first 3 years and still remember the "I vs. me" lectures. Must be the main requirement before they could board the boat departing Ireland. I guess Mother Teresa and me didn't make the trip.

There is a definite right and wrong. As robbie has pointed out, the easiest way to figure out which one is to eliminate the other person. ( This is the way the mob does it- and it works every time. )

So: Sara and I went to the movies. Then some bullies picked on Sara and me.

 

[robbie]

Any professional teacher who punishes the use of correct grammar while misrepresenting incorrect grammar as correct is by definition ignorant and pretentious. It's nothing personal, but it's true. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. I'm sure your teacher was a delightful person, but unfortunately ill equipped to teach grammar. She probably went to Catholic school.

 

[machinist@large]

LOL. I went to Catholic school for the first 3 years and still remember the "I vs. me" lectures.

There is a definite right and wrong. As robbie has pointed out, the easiest way to figure out which one is to eliminate the other person. ( This is the way the mob does it- and it works every time. )

So: Sara and I went to the movies. Then some bullies picked on Sara and me.

Well, Poboy, you got me there. While I can't speak for anyone else, I can say that when the family farms finances said I was going to have to switch to the public school system (make the payments on the new grain bin, or private schooling for both children???? Decisions, decisions.... guess which won....) I went from a relatively strict but organized learning environment to the Lowell Public Schools personal version of the total destruction of the public education system that occurred when the baby boomers graduated from college, and declared that the education system they were raised under was , and THEY knew better.

I got to fourth grade, and the running the asylum were just thinking about getting around to thinking about maybe talking about how they wanted to try teaching what I learned in first or second grade to my new class mates. I'm actually still amazed that 1 1/2 years later, someone noticed that I couldn't see the black board any more, let alone the fact that they actually thought about notifying my parents. ( My parents had both my younger brother and I's vision tested; we both needed glasses.)

The teacher who flagged it actually caught some serous from the other teachers; even I could pick that up during the rest of my fifth grade year. And it didn't get any better thru middle school and high school.... Until I found out about Kent Skill Center (now Kent Career Technology Center).

I had to trip over an industrial training school to find out how the education system is probably supposed to work....

Robbie, you made a pretty accurate observation about, well, lets say "Certain" teachers; what didn't sit well with me was you threw out a generality about one of the true teachers I've ever met.

Once again, I have to give every one on the forum an apology for getting wound up into a rant..... Pat

 

[robbie]

I don't mean to insult anybody. I just call them like I see them.

 

[machinist@large]

Any professional teacher who punishes the use of correct grammar while misrepresenting incorrect grammar as correct is by definition ignorant and pretentious. It's nothing personal, but it's true. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. I'm sure your teacher was a delightful person, but unfortunately ill equipped to teach grammar. She probably went to Catholic school.

Robbie, while you have a definite point about certain "people" being ignorant and pretentious, I would only class ONE who fit that description when I was attending Catholic school. I didn't find out that like that existed until I wound up in the public school system.

To have you claim that someone "Must have attended Catholic school" because of the way they were teaching a subject is as arrogant and ignorant as you claimed that one of the best teachers I've so far had was.

And for the record, I'm NOT with drawing that opinion.

Pat

EDIT: Robbie, you responded before I could post this, but I'm still not retracting it.