20 Common Grammar Mistakes

I constantly hear people say things like “Her and me” or “Him and I” “Me and Bob went…”

Another one that seems to give a lot of trouble is being able to distinguish between the singular and plural of woman/women. “I met a women…” makes me want to claw myself.

Then/Than “Better then” instead of “better than”

You might like this Web site: Common Errors in English

(hope the html works there…)

I am still aghast. I STILL here people say it and cringe.

Did you cringe at my last comment?

Your friend is completely wrong. That is a perfectly grammatical construction. It is a trait of Pennsylvanian English that I have adopted because of it’s efficiency.

The best way to use this list is as a list of things to never correct anyone for. They are almost all untrue.

I guess the numbering of this top “20″ list demonstrates that grammatical absolutists are not always mathmatically sequential.

I am continually quilty of saying… “the car needs cleaned…. the dishes need washed… ” etc etc….

-your wife

It always bugs me when people say “these ones” or “those ones” but I don’t know if that’s a grammatical issue or not. I mean, I say “this one” and “that one” so would it be so wrong to use the same structure when it’s plural? Regardless of if it’s wrong or not, it still makes me cringe.

In general, I’m a RIDICULOUS stickler for correct “formal” grammar and have to bite my tongue quite often when I hear/read it used incorrectly. (I place “formal” in quotes to distinguish what has definitely become acceptable grammar from what I was taught, growing up)

Who would set the transcendent norms?

First, I think there is a way to speak and write formally without bringing the idea of good and bad or right and wrong grammar into it.

Formal and informal are simply different codes that we slip in and out of depending on who we’re communicating to.

More importantly, though, to expect someone else’s language to be identical to mine or it’s “wrong” and “bad” is elitist. And since linguistic differences are so tied up with where and who we’re from, we are often unaware of how what we call “standards” are really just racial, ethnic, or plain wrong-side-of-the-tracks prejudice.

Imagine if, instead of an example from PA, I had used an example from Black English Vernacular. Would you still say that the language that millions of African Americans use as their mother tongue is not a high enough power?

Teaching children grammar the way we do (or used to) is teaching them to judge others (or be ashamed themselves) for the rest of their life.

Instead, we ought to learn and teach the way language is not the way we pretend it should be. Because language—everybody’s language—is too wonderful and astonishing to make any one variant what all the rest should submit to.

Every one of those “rules” in the post has a long and interesting history of how and why some people say one thing and some people say another. Wouldn’t understanding that history be more valuable knowledge than simply knowing who we can be legitimately annoyed by since they don’t know “good English”?

Obviously, I think this is a big deal. Thanks for listening.

Wow, I couldn’t disagree with Abraham more, which is unusual. Saying that all usages are not equal is not judmgental; it’s just fact. (Of course, in the literal sense, it is judmental in that it’s making a judgment, but I assume you mean it’s judgmental in a negative sense. See how even the word “judgmental” has been wrongly hijacked and given a negative connotation no matter the context? I digress.)

To say that a person need not be taught correct grammar or usage because he grew up in location X or in circumstances Y is belittling and almost dismissive. It’s like saying that they are incapable of learning the correct and accepted rules of grammar and usage, so why even expect it of them. That’s a shame.

Are colloquialisms fine and even fun? Sure. I grew up in the South and it wasn’t until grad school that I realized “might could” was improper. (As in, “I might could get there by 5.”) I still use the phrase at times but not in professional conversation or in professional writing. I grew up saying it. I learned it was incorrect. I stopped saying it. Why is that hard or wrong?

Now, correcting another person’s grammar is an entirely different issue. I would not do that (unless it’s my children’s) because it is usually degrading and mean. But, that doesn’t mean a person shouldn’t try to learn correct grammar and usage and realize that they’re going to sound less intelligent if they don’t. Because there are absolutes in grammar. (Nevertheless, it’s fine to purposefully deviate from the rules. See how I used a sentence fragment before this parenthetical? Purposeful. A choice. That doesn’t make it wrong to teach a person that a sentence must contain a subject and a verb. )

I couldn’t agree with Abraham more! ’nuff sed!

Abraham,

As it relates to communicating to a broad, or perhaps undefined audience, doesn’t there need to be some kind of objective standard?

It’s not clear to me what the problem is with the idea of an objective formal standard. In actuality, it seems to me that it would be a serious problem if there weren’t such an objective standard. Think of contracts, licensing, laws and reporting. Think of the excuse “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Think of all the class-action lawyers, politically driven media outlets, spin-masters and politicians in the world.

Lack of an accepted “global” standard or towards the ‘enforcement’ of said standard (even by using definite and simple terms such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’) would lead to obfuscation and perfidy without a reasonable level of accountability. I don’t see the connection between ‘good’/'bad’ as it relates to an objective standard with prejudice.

No disrespect intended, I’m definitely a pleb and have learned a good bit from reading your online writings, but your statement above seems to be too heavy in platitudes and too light in practical objectivity.

As it relates to the idea of people being “annoyed” with improper English in common personal use, then, unless you’re talking about your own children, never-mind. I would agree. What difference does one’s personal choice of communication make so long as the thought or idea is understood properly?

Okay, now I’ll stand by to be corrected…

@Abraham

I’m not sure what the point is in advocating the use of poor grammar and spelling skills. Language is what allows us to communicate effectively, clearly and meaningfully with others. While it’s true that language is fluid, and spellings, meanings change over time, new words enter the lexicon, essentially there is a core to it that remains. We are still able to read and understand Shakespeare 500 years later (albeit, with some help for the more archaic bits). If you can’t use the language well can you be understood? This is not about elitism, or racism. When we hear someone of another nationality struggling to speak English, we strain to understand and help them. We don’t instantly sneer at them and look down on them. But if the native speakers of the language have a minimal grasp of the bones and foundation of the language, on what basis can we teach it to others? Standard English is not beyond anyone’s reach. It is not being withheld from anyone to keep anyone down. To not bother to learn it is just plain laziness.

Do you enjoy reading a good, well-written book? If writers can’t master the language, what kinds of books will there be?

Language is used to persuade, to make a point. Politicians and advertisers know this, and use it to their advantage.

Whether right or wrong, language identifies you as educated or not, intelligent or not. People will judge others based on language and language skills. Is a newspaper going to hire a copy editor who doesn’t know the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ and misspells every other word (even if you can eventually figure out what they meant)? When a written piece is riddled with errors, what are the chances the writer will be misunderstood, or not understood at all? Do you enjoy reading something that’s badly written? It is not wrong to expect people to learn the proper use of English. Many jobs demand a good understanding of the language, to tell people it’s not necessary to learn it is to do them a great disservice.

This is not a racial thing. Every culture has the same expectations that its citizenry speak the language correctly.

Formal and informal are simply different codes that we slip in and out of depending on who we’re communicating to.

It still seems that a rigid position of grammatical relativism would not be helfpul.

Though one way of writing/speaking might not be inherently better or worse than any other, you still have to submit to the standards and expectations of the context in which you are writing/speaking. I would think that within a given context there would necessarily be some method of evaluation.

So, while it is perfectly proper for me to say, “Dude. Cowboy up, and stop playin the pansy” on the raquetball court, it is decidedly improper to say this in an article for certain academic journals. I might have a heart-warming story about how I came to use that phrase, but it would still be bad/poor/incorrect style in many other contexts. I think this applies to a host of other grammatical issues.

Even if all “codes” are of equal worth, don’t they still have to be used in the ‘proper’ context to avoid impropriety?

Using a ‘code’ in a contrary context and demanding that it be acceptable there just seems like a form of lingua-centrism.

Abraham oddly seems to be advocating a form of language anarchy. If there are no set standards, and the English language can take ANY form, then no true communication is possible.

What would happen if we applied this medicine? Let’s say someone from the “wrong side of the tracts” (to use Abraham’s example) who has not been trained in the medical field offers medical advice. Or, perhaps he has been trained and simply refuses to follow standard practice. And let’s say a licensed medical doctor said that this advice was absolutely wrong. Is he being elitist, or simply being faithful to the industry’s standard?

English, while in a constant state of flux, has been codified. Many cultural subgroups were (wrongly) deprived of sufficient opportunities for education (a costly reminder of the evils of slavery, and the long-standing inequality that followed). Thus, the mimicked English of those groups can be clearly traced to a lack of formal education. Instead of being beautiful expression of language variance, it is a reminder of the viciously oppressive prejudicial system perpetrated by white America. To defend bad English, under the guise of embracing diversity, is little more than whitewashing the effects of our former national sin (or in the case of many other supposed ’subgroups’, like skateboarders, it is an abandoning our community’s responsibility to educate our children).

Curious if Abraham is planning on letting his son be diverse in his English, or if dad plans on being “elitist” and correcting a toddler’s bad grammar.

No offense Abraham! Love your posts (most of the time, though once in a while….)

JG Writes: “Abraham oddly seems to be advocating a form of language anarchy. If there are no set standards, and the English language can take ANY form, then no true communication is possible.”

Which, interestingly enough, is what is usually happening whenever language is undergoing a shift that INCREASES its communicative power.

The Norman Invasion, the wealth of American coinages and usage adding to British English, the new vocabulary of the technological upheaval, the melting pot of grammarS and vocabulary at a time of mass immigration.

It’s only by following grammatical rules that we can consistently understand what a speaker is trying to say. Imagine trying to translate the ancient Hebrew texts without knowledge of ancient Hebrew grammar!

There is so much to say I don’t even know where to start. Also it’s 2 in the morning.

Sorry I haven’t been more involved in the brouhaha that I helped begin. I’ve been painting and building a kitchen all day.

I like Abraham’s idea of including the history of language in English classes. It is so interesting. I think kids would love it, and it would make them so much more aware of language they hear and use.

Since we live in a society that has set up a standard for English usage in certain situations, we should teach children and adults who are learning English to use it at appropriate times without tying it into their value as a person.

I’m not one who thinks we must use formal English is every situation. However, if we are pretty consistent in using it, then we will have had plenty of practice for when we need it.

And there WILL be times when we need it. In several decades of teaching and learning, I have seen that God does not waste anything. If he has put something in front of us to learn, then someday we are going to need it.

People often whine: “Why do I have to know this? When will I ever use that? I just want to be a ______________________. I’m not ever going to use this stuff!”

To that I say, “How do you know? God has plans for you that you know nothing about right now.”

Getting back to grammar–for people who are interested in polishing up their speaking and writing, the following books come highly recommended by the folks at Veritas Press:

Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation! by Lynne Truss. It approaches the subject with humor and a good bit of that history that Abraham brought up earlier.

Our Mother Tongue: A Guide to English Grammar by Nancy Wilson

Style: Lessons In Clarity and Grace by Joseph M. Williams

We have just started using these in our homeschool this year, and even though I was an A student with a major in education and a minor in English, I’m still learning a few things from them. And science is now telling us what teachers knew all along: Learning NEW things helps keep your whole body and mind going!

wut’s the big deel?

Sorry…couldn’t resist injecting a little humor.

It always aggravates me when someone doesn’t footnote which style manual they are using, because their lack of documentation causes me to want to correct their text using my default style, which is a modified MLS.

Of course, if what they have published is only on a blog or is only part of a casual discussion, I’m probably the one who is expecting Shakespeare from a room full of monkeys.

[...] Wardrobe” last night, and I found the following quote rather humorous in light of our recent discussion about the impropriety of “proper” [...]

Myrddin,

If language has no standards, it has succumbed to anarchy, and thus cannot communicate anything.

How then, can you make the following statement: “Which, interestingly enough, is what is usually happening whenever language is undergoing a shift that INCREASES its communicative power.”

How can its communicative power increase in anarchy? Obviously, it cannot.

No one is arguing that English isn’t undergoing transition. The current (and increasing) multicultural enviroment alone is making that happen. And this isn’t seen simply in words or phrases, but also in grammar and syntax (albeit the latter moves a little slower).

But let me show my point. You claim that the phrase “Me be a’going to the store” is perfectly appropriate English because it communicates its meaning.

Ahhhhh, but notice the standard YOU’ve imposed. It is only appropriate, in your definition, because you can understand its meaning. What if you couldn’t? Would it still be appropriate? If not, are you allowing your subjective bias to take over? Are you imposing an objective standard as a criteria to determine what is and what is not appropriate? And if so, who gets to determine this standard? And if you can impose this standard, is there no room to impose other standards?

What if the young man said “Me goed coming be the store? Is this now inappropriate English since its meaning is not readily understandable? If it is inappropriate English, you have become a proponent of standard English–a language Elitist! If it is perfectly appropriate, then I admire your consistency–but welcome to the world of meaninglessness.

JG:

I am actually on your side here, but let me axe you a question.

When my 3-yr-old nephew says, “me go with you” (phonetically, “mee go wiff yew”), can I understand what he’s saying? Why doesn’t that form simply come into my ears as complete gibberish?

Frank,

Because your three-year old is actually following a standard–albeit a rudimentary standard. He is using a pronoun in the place of a noun, a verb, a direct object, not to mention an understandable use of a preposition. Also, to reverse the situation, you can understand him because your mind knows a standard exists and automatically tries to plug all statements into that standard.

For example, in your post you stated “but let me axe you a question”. Certainly “axe” is non-standard. In and of itself it is a word that has no relation, and therefore no syntaxical meaning, within the sentence (unless you meant to write the question on an axe and anchor it into my skull). But because language is impossible without standards, my brain automatically seeks to replace that with a “proper” word (ask). Did your sentence make sense? Yes, but only because a standard exist and my brain demanded conformity to it.

The opponents of an English standard fail to realize that unless some sort of standard is used language becomes impossible. The argument simply becomes to what degree one should be required to conform to the standard. Imagine in your three-year old tried to communicate the same meaning using only prepositions….obviously you wouldn’t be able to understand him.

In regard to the one about CDs versus CD’s:

In my opinion, it is sometimes helpful to offset the “s” from the acronym or other symbolic “word” which is being pluralized.

For example, in an article discribing matrices with ones and zeros, the writer might express this as “1’s” and “0’s,” for the simple reason that “1s” and “0s” makes you wonder whether “s” is part of the symbolic form or a pluralization imposed on it. (It could be that “s” is a variable and “1s” looks like “ls” which appears to be an acronym.) Also, rarely, both lower and upper case letters are included in an acronym - so maybe CDs means “compact disc slow.” OK, it’s a stretch. But consider: why should we be compelled to apply an English language rule to “words” which are not English (per se)?

I sometimes use an apostrophe for lack of a more widely recognized convention in pluralizing non-English symbols. Sometimes I impose the English rule. It depends on . . . stuff (context, audience, assignment marker, etc.). Maybe someone should artificially create a convention for these silly “words.”

[No, I don't think "CD" has graduated to legitimate English word status :)]

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I notice that an overwhelming percentage of men use the word “loose” instead of the proper term “lose” (ie: I don’t want to loose my money.) Bugs bug buuuugggssss me! :)

[...] 20, 2008 in Mind & Spirit Johnathon and Abraham have initiated discussions on the subject of grammar. At issue is whether [...]

JG,

Upon reading your two most recent comments above, I realised that this same argument has a wider application, for example to the debate as to whether any given action is morally “good” or “bad”.

If a moral standard exists, then we are able to judge actions against that standard. If there is no standard, then we are being ridiculous if we attempt to make such a judgement. I often wonder why people charged with various criminal acts in our courts don’t just say, in this post-modern world, “I don’t believe in your standard of behaviour so I am not willing to be held accountable to it.” I guess it’s because they’d be told the standard has been recognised by a whole lot of people over a very long time and they’re just going to have to put up with it! And then we are brought to the question of who brought the standard into being in the first place.

It is also interesting to consider Who wired our brains so that they would always be attempting to identify and then apply all manner of patterns in the world of our experience. (Yes, I have just read your post on capitalising pronouns referring to the Godhead, and I find it particularly useful to do so here.)

Just because certain people aren’t aware of, or don’t agree with, or don’t acknowledge the standard, does not mean that the standard does not exist. It is the culmination of the practices of the masses over a very long time. In my country, it is known as SAE, Standard Australian English. SAE differs from American English in many ways (and some American grammatical structures still confuse me) but that does not mean that the standard is not still of value for the purpose of assisting people in communicating within the extent of the domain of that standard.

An example: “Kriol” vocabulary and grammar is quite useful in communicating within the Aboriginal community of northern Australia. But the wider community has a different standard. So when an Aboriginal person from Arnhem Land is communicating with the wider community, they need to use the wider community’s standard: SAE, not Kriol. The benefit of using the wider standard in all situations is that one can almost always be understood, whereas the reverse is not the case.

So which is the better one to teach and apply in public situations? Whichever standard which is more widely accepted and known.