Post by Little Jack Horner on Feb 20, 2019 17:28:21 GMT
Well, well ‼️ I don’t care who says it, but I refuse to regard “should of” or “would of” as being anything other than unequivocally, downright wrong.
More to the point, the article repeats the frequently asserted idea that past grammarians tried somehow to force English grammar into a form based on Latin or French. I am still waiting for someone to provide rigorous evidence for this. I think it is equally likely that grammarians were simply codifying the accepted language of educated speakers of the day.
It is often said by descriptivists, with whom I have no quarrel, that some long dead and admired author ignored “rules” about split infinitives and other abominations and happily split them — Shakespeare is sometimes cited but, of course, Shakespeare was writing dialogue and wasn’t necessarily using what he thought was “correct” English.
The fact that many of today’s style guides assert that past grammarians based their English grammars on Latin or French is no evidence that they did. EVIDENCE please.
What happened to to – as in jump into? Everywhere I look / listen it's now just jump in – difficult in many situations and quite a different notion. "Jump in the car" instead of "jump into the car" – most cars are very difficult to jump in. It seems now that everyone jumps in (cars, pools, beds …) rather than into; while I acknowledge that some things can be jumped in, it's the missing to that irritates me.
And I'd better not start with jumping on the internet! So many ads in my newspaper proofing work carry the instruction to "jump on our website" or "jump on line"! How the hell can one jump on something non-physical, fergawdsake?!
Perhaps jump has joined those godawful excuses for verbs: go/went ("I go/went blah blah blah") and was like ("I was like Yes Please"). Maybe I'm just jumping on a dead horse!
"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn." — Gore Vidal
Here’s an example – dialogue from a YouTube video – of the egregious use of embolalia, the verbal virus like: 19 likes across four sentences! Two of them, in conjunction with was, are substitute verbs for said; the rest are entirely gratuitous.
Note: The dialogue quoted below took a mere one minute and 50 seconds of the 5.5-minute video and turned me off watching any farther into the piece.
Instead of like getting in trouble in my house it was more like “How could you have done that like better?”.
We kinda like exchanged phone numbers and like did pretty basic flirty texting, and then had like our first date. I had a like a very fancy friend who was like my dad’s chef worked for this restaurant called XXX and that was like my only like touchstone for how to like impress someone in LA so and I was like where shall we have dinner I was like XXX …
I had like US$47 total which I spent on like foie gras. He ordered like this really disgusting bone-marrow pasta and I had to like pretend that I was into the like bone marrow while we were like sitting at this like bar …
This Japanese website seems to deal with like; whether it’s merely explanatory for Japanese trying to learn / understand modern idiomatic English or whether it’s being critical of the usage I’ve no idea. (Scroll down to the video.)
It certainly is annoying. As is beginning a sentence - or even a conversation - with a gratuitous “So”.
So I'm sure I've banged on about that in the past.
It's epidemic at my workplace, and on more than a few occasions I've challenged the offenders on that usage – via mockery, replying with initial sos to their questions / comments – but to little avail. The habit is so ingrained that it appears ineradicable.
(No wonder that years ago the boss – a chronic so-er – gifted me a coffee mug emblazoned with "I'm silently correcting your grammar!")
In short, Grammar Girl says that when "shine" is used as a transitive verb the past tense is "shined", but when used intransitively it's "shone". Interesting. I'd not given that any thought previously.