A couple of responses: First, the 'try and'. The phrase 'try and see' was a mistake on MY part, I think. The mistaken phrase would be this: Why don't you try and jump over that rock. The correct phrase would by, Why don't you try to jump over that rock. Which, I think, is axiomatic now that I have clarified. (But merely for the sake of simplicity, if you 'try and jump,' you're being redundant, because the word 'try' implies that you're going to try to jump. To try AND jump implies that the word 'try' is a mutually exclusive action from jumping, which it is not; trying IS jumping. Therefore, the sentence 'try and jump' could be also read, 'jump and jump.' Not necessarily, but I hope you catch the meaning.) And as for the quote modifiers, what I meant was this: Adding a modifier after every quote, if only two people are speaking, is unnecessary. For example, Bill and Jack are talking: Jack looked up, "What is it?" "Nothing too important," Bill breathed in a way that meant the opposite would. "Nothing too important?" "No, but you might want to listen." "I'm listening." "Can't you listen more attentively?" "This is as attentive as I get!" "I mean, visually." Jack cast his friend a withering gaze before setting his pencil down. "Happy?" "Quite." It is perfectly easy, when there are only two character, to use NO modifiers. This, I think, lends impact when you DO use them. Regarding the word 'myriad,' try to think of it as the word 'many'. Many and myriad are used exactly the same. Myriad is simply the stronger of the two, meaning 'an indefinitely great number,' whereas 'many' simply means, 'a lot'. (And I'm not necessarily using dictionary definitions, here) So you would say, "I have myriad (many) books." As Gone Wishing pointed out. Incidentally, Kas, does the word 'antidisestablishmentarianism' have enough pre- and suffixes? I attempted to debunk the word, once, but it apparently has a very specific meaning.
Oh! How could I forget this: Using 'their' for 'him'. When referring to a person of an unspecified gender, the grammatically appropriate term is the pronoun 'him' or 'his'. "I'm going to be paired up with someone, but I don't know whether I'll like him, or even what his gender is!" This 'their' stuff to avoid sexism is really boring.
It's a bit of a mouthful, and I can't imagine where I'd want to use it, (I'd try to think of something less clunky - or is it 'try and?' lol - that one irks me too) but at least it holds up to scrutiny. Disestablishmentarianism is a political view. So adding the prefix anti means you are speaking of those who oppose it. Anti-antis are common enough. That may seem redundant, but I suppose it can be worth making the distinction because so many people are consumed with fighting the good fight against X group instead of just expressing their own thoughts on the subject. Protesting the protesters is not the same as having a conflicting opinion.
My pet peeves when it comes to writing is seeing mistakes in newspapers. Shouldn't someone working for said newspaper be able to spot the mistake and correct it? Also... I live in Sweden and the writing rules are somewhat different in Swedish than in English. The problem is that we're swamped with American/British films, books computer games etc. etc, so more than often I see people using English rules when they write in Swedish. That drives me nuts.
I see a lot of Latinos in the midwest writing English but using Spanish grammar rules (And vice versa.) It's annoying, but it's also the only expected outcome from two cultures meshing.
kas... in re your 'lecture': good grief, what on earth gave you the idea that i was saying it's ok to use that stupid word, when i started out and ended with agreeing with you completely?!... i certainly wouldn't have gone to the trouble to post the dictionary explanation of why it's stupid if i was, now would i?
Maia, sorry! But your post was confusing and this is what threw me. I took that to mean "they mean the same thing (irregardless/regardless), thus they are interchangeable and both perfectly valid and correct." I have friends in real life who pull up these dictionary references all the time. They use it to justify stupid words, even when the reference goes on to explain just how stupid the word is. "Look, it IS a real word! It's in the dictionary! HAH! Gotcha!" I guess that threw me a bit as well. But don't mind me - I'm a hopeless insomniac and always tired. The fault is probably mine. I'm sorry if I came accross as arrogant in my 'lecture'. I live in a hick town where just about everyone speaks mutilated english and it drives me bat***.
I know it's expected, and to be honest I'm the only one among my friends who really pays attention to it. So I guess I'm just... well, weird.
Say, Flozzie, tell me; what are the grammar rules (perhaps some choice examples) for Swedish writing in contradistinction to English rules?
no harm done, kas... you just missed my sarcastic, 'if you must use it' before the words that set you off, as well as all the other negative jabs throughout my post... work on getting more sleep, honeybunch... ;-) love and hugs, maia
How I understand past and passed, is if you can replace it with by then use past, if not use passed. He went by (past) the woman in the red dress. He passed the woman in the red dress. Why don't you try and see if you can jump over that rock. I prefer that sentence. It reads bettter and sounds better.
It saddens me to see that "irregardless" is considered a word. Hearing that word straightens my neck hairs. How can ir - without, regardless - without regard, be considered a word? But maybe I shouldn't question, after all, "DUH!" made it in... Edited for: ...or is it "DOH?" sigh.
Since moving to L.A. I hear people saying "Look it!" all the time instead of "look at that" or "look at it". It irks me. Now my kids say it and sometimes I even slip and say it then have to resist the urge to beat my head into a wall for saying it, lol. It can't possibly be proper to say "look it" can it?
Like I said, I wrote it incorrectly. It is not, 'try and see,' it is, 'try and jump,' which should be, 'try to jump'.
What comes to mind now, is mostly writing something in two words. You do that a lot less in Swedish than in English. For example: Sash window - skjutfönster Lay figure - skyltdocka Heat wave - värmebölja
Hah. This supposes that newspapers are run by clever, put together teams of people who double check and triple check everything. This is sometimes true, and sometimes it isn't. It varies from paper to paper. I was a sub-editor at a newspaper. The process went something like this. Writer submits the piece. Sub-editor (me), reads it and cuts it to length. If it's 90 lines and I need 30, I cut 60 lines. This may or may not happen at the same time as I lay out the page. I print it and hand it over to the reader, who reads it and marks all the mistakes that I missed (and I missed a lot when I first started). I fix the mistakes, show it to the reader again, and off it goes. Now, to be fair, that's 3 points at which a mistake should be picked up (four, if you count the original writer). However, this isn't always the case at smaller publications, or in supplements. The paper I worked for was a biggish regional daily, so it was quite up to scratch. We used style guides and dictionaries, obviously. Some places might not bother, or they might just have less checks. In addition, a bad writer is going to make more errors, meaning that if a fixed percentage of mistakes get caught, more mistakes are still going to get through. A newspaper printed by the students at the local campus isn't going to get the same scrutiny as Le Monde. Additionally, if there's a really tight deadline coming up, things get really rushed, and mistakes tend to slip through. I definitely know that the fluff supplements got a lot less scrutiny than the financials section. It wasn't a complete free for all, but a mistake in the school sports section is a lot less problematic than a mistake in the financials.
It can't possibly be proper to say "look it" can it? nope!... unless you're saying 'look it up in the dictionary'...
This is the only thing I have to comment on, I agree with the other stuff(Even though, I myself, probably do the 'past' thing). Something like the above would be in speech. If a character is speaking, and it is not the narrator, I don't believe you can critique the set up of the sentence, the grammar, and all that. That is my pet peeve, in fact. People criticizing how a CHARACTER speaks! Who says the character has to speak with ultimate frekkin' awesomeness? What if he is a hobo, or foreign? OR A REDNECK(Also, not all Texans are Rednecks. In fact, Texans believe only people her a jerks are rednecks!)! But, yea. Thats just my two cents.
The phrase that always irks me is "it was all he could do", usually in a context like "He watched the boy fall down the stairs. It was all he could do to contain his surprise." The vagueness of "it" is the part that gets me i think, it's implying that an action is performed that the reader isn't allowed to know about or something. Just feel like a part of the story is missing.
To the Evil Ferret of Randomness (mouthful) : I wonder why everyone wants to pick on that. I finally get it absolutely right, and someone STILL comments on it in the negative, even though you actually agree with it. You made a general statement but associated it with the error I pointed out. You are correct, though; you can't nitpick at someone's speech patterns or incorrect word usage, unless he claims to be a master of the English language. Even then, however; it is merely for the bragging rights. To Diet Aether: THAT is a GOOD one! "It was all I could do to not laugh--" WHAT is all you could do? I think it means, "It took everything in me to not laugh," just phrased in such a way as to be obscure. I'm certain if we sat down and contemplated it with our full attention, it would become clear. Shakespear probably invented the phrasing. Oh, another one: "And so--" Enough said.