Comments on: Top 10 Errors in English that Aren’t Errors

By: vermilionskin

vermilionskin — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:23:20 +0000

Well written

By: Nate

Nate — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:58:05 +0000

Although I agree with many of these, I don’t know how much I can trust a writer whose use of semicolons is so non-standard:
“True, one should be aware that many such sentences would be improved by becoming clauses in compound sentences; but there are many effective and traditional uses for beginning sentences in this way.”

Since there’s a conjuction after the semicolon, a comma would suffice.

By: Boz Worth

Boz Worth — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 13:35:03 +0000

Most of this is plainly wrong and all of it utterly void of authority. If you believe any of it, you need to spend time on a real grammar site.

By: mARC

mARC — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:57:10 +0000

You guyses are gooder then I at you’re grammers?

By: AliciaS

AliciaS — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:26:51 +0000

This is my kind of list! Whether you choose to use the correct grammar or not it’s nice to know what’s correct. On the other hand, as a snob i manage to think less of an educated person who uses bad grammar. It’s everywhere and it annoys the heck out of me. There was an interesting discussion in the comments of one List on (education) discrimination. It was funny to see people discussing the importance of higher education using incorrect English.

I’m sure there are errors in the last paragraph. I’m too lazy to correct them and its too difficult using an iPhone. I are an college dropout anyway. Ha ha.

One other thing, I believe that amen’t is the contraction for am not – not ain’t. At least that’s what I think my hardcore academic father told me years ago.

By: fed

fed — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:27:03 +0000

Me is bester on grammers.

By: Chris Browne

Chris Browne — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:29:04 +0000

It should be noted that many Latin scholars over the years have contributed to English grammar, borrowing from Latin rules because of the rigor by which they were enforced. I can’t quote any Latin here because I don’t know any, but I have it on good authority that the reasons for Latin grammar’s rigidity and structure are based upon their rules for word formation and meaning. In English, meaning is derived almost entirely from context (demoting grammar to nothing more than a stylistic choice in our language, despite what many pedants would have you think). In Latin, however, the word carries all the meaning, so arranging words in the wrong order entirely changes the meaning of a sentence. There are one or two examples in English of sentences that will shift meaning if you change words around, but there are many thousands where the order of the words does not change the meaning whatsoever.

“The donkey sat on the rug” means the same thing as “The rug was sat on by the donkey”. I believe the Subject, Object and Verb ordering of Latin means that the latter (if translated poorly) would come out as “The rug sat on the donkey”.

It is this principle difference between Latin and English (from where meaning is derived) that causes many people to trip up when trying to apply Latin grammatical rules to English sentences – and why should they?

By: opusthepenguin

opusthepenguin — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:24:03 +0000

Thank you! When I was 11, I had a poem published in “Miles to Go,” the annual literary publication of the Governor’s Program for Gifted Children at McNeese State University in Lake Charles, LA (aka summer camp for geeks). The mouth-breathing student editor changed my till to a ’til, making me feel as though I’d committed an error. I fretted over that for years. So two thumbs up for Number 9.

A minor nitpick on Number 7, however. (Which reminds me. If I added an 11th point to your list, it would be the senseless ban on sentence fragments. They can certainly be overused, and they may convey a folksy tone that doesn’t fit certain styles and contexts; but they aren’t automatically ERRORS, for crying out loud!) Anyway, on Number 7, you note that “adjectives connected to a sensation in the viewer (such as happy) are often transferred to the object or event they are viewing.” That’s true, but “a happy coincidence” may not be the best example. “Happy,” in that context, probably means “lucky” or “fortuitous”. That goes all the way back to the English origins of “happy” in the Middle English “hap,” meaning luck or chance.

Your other example of “a gloomy landscape” is, of course, spot on.

By: sakurakira

sakurakira — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:02:44 +0000

Ain’t is a contraction of “am not.” So, you can legitimately say “I ain’t afraid.” However, your usage above is not correct. You would not say “Am not ‘ain’t’ a word?” Unfortunately the word has become so tainted in America and associated with ignorance that it’s best not use it, even if said usage is done correctly.

Similarly, “shan’t” (shall not) is also not used commonly anymore, although I think it’s quite fun.

By: rr

rr — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:10:22 +0000

This usage stems from the German verb mitkommen. “Kommen Sie mit?” = Are you coming with? Of course you can argue that the correct translation should be “Are you coming?” But you can see why German immigrants, and their descendants, would add the “with.” I personally find it to be charming quirk. And I think it means something slightly different than “Are you coming?” That question makes me think the speaker is asking “Are you ready yet?” Whereas “Are you coming with?” obviously means “Are you coming with me/us?”