Proper grammar is hot.

[Agrippa]

You would enjoy:

Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss...

Thanks for the recommendation Dee. I picked it up at the GBQ on my way home. There were six other copies on the shelf for the others who are interested...

Seems like a quick and funny read!

 

[Agrippa]

Eats, Shoots & Leaves

An even better example from her book!

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy – will you let me be yours?

Jill​

versus

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?

Yours,
Jill
​

 

[Dee]

An even better example from her book!

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy – will you let me be yours?

Jill​

versus

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?

Yours,
Jill
​

Incredible... and funny....

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Could someone please explain to me the rule with these two words? Sometimes we use towards, other time toward. Is it about the subject being singular or plural? Like acting towards goals v. acting toward a goal? What is the proper way of using toward/s?

Thank you,

JAG

"Some critics have tried to discern a semantic distinction between toward and towards, but the difference is entirely dialectal. Toward is more common in American English; towards is the predominant form in British English."

In some cases, though not likely here, a word is misused so often that it eventually becomes correct through evolution.

 

[EagerBeaver]

"Some critics have tried to discern a semantic distinction between toward and towards, but the difference is entirely dialectal. Toward is more common in American English; towards is the predominant form in British English."

In some cases, though not likely here, a word is misused so often that it eventually becomes correct through evolution.

Another way to look at it is that evolution favors economy of language. If you can say the same thing with less of a spoken word that is an improvement in terms of the efficiency of communication. The cavemen in prehistoric times spoke in a series of grunts and eventually were able to economize the grunts, then form words, then language.

Under this analytical model, the American "toward" is more highly evolved than the British "towards." Thus it is the British that have misused the word. We have simply evolved the word into a more efficient mechanism of communicating a thought. There are other examples of this as well.

Let's also not forget that in the days of Dickens, English writers were paid by the word and the written page so there were financial reasons for making use of excessive language. Thus evolved a language that was erudite but not very efficient in terms of communicating a bottom line.

By the ways I majored in English literature in college, and while I have great respect for some the of classic writers of English, we should also look at the big picture in terms of the evolution of language and communication. Certainly not all of us here on this Board need to communicate in such an erudite manner as Dickens or Tennyson in order to convey a thought about how much we enjoyed getting our cocks sucked or similar thoughts.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Another way to look at it is that evolution favors economy of language. If you can say the same thing with less of a spoken word that is an improvement in terms of the efficiency of communication.

While you'd think that evolution favors economy of language, in practice it isn't so. Convolution rules the day here.

Witness: the use of the word "utilize" in common practice nowadays when "use" would not only be the correct word, but the more efficient one.

Witness: "the ballgame is in a rain delay" has been, sadly, replaced all too often by "the ballgame is in a rain delay situation." (The word "situation" is unnecessary, it seems, 90% of the time it's used.

I could go on, but you get the point.

 

[Dee]

Let's also not forget that in the days of Dickens, English writers were paid by the word and the written page so there were financial reasons for making use of excessive language. Thus evolved a language that was erudite but not very efficient in terms of communicating a bottom line.

.... and let's also not forget that there was a certain profession described by Jonathon Swift as follows:

there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves.

who were likewise paid and hence rules were developed that certain pleadings were, say, not to exceed three folios in length.

 

[Dee]

In some cases, though not likely here, a word is misused so often that it eventually becomes correct through evolution.

While I rejoice at the organic nature of the English language it drives me nuts when errors are taken as growth.

Soon, I fear, the sentences the Peter Devries' characters employ to torture the English prig (eg. Them sheeps ain't his'n.) will be regarded as brilliant and daring advance guards into the linguistic New World.

For heaven's sake "literally" can now, literally, mean figuratively....

and yet see this interesting Slate article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/

 

[Techman]

Hi JAG...I don't want to nit pick but seeing as this thread is about proper grammar, perhaps you should correct the line in your signature that goes 'What's you fantasy...?' to 'What's your fantasy...?'

It's OK, you don't have to thank me.

Techman