And so it has come to be National Grammar Day again, one of those made-up holidays like National Soup Month or World Hello Day. I can’t help but feel cynical about the day, in the same way that Matt Lane at Math Goes Pop! felt cynical about yesterday’s “Square Root Day”. The problem is that Square Root Day doesn’t get anyone excited about real math, but rather about simple arithmetic coincidences. Likewise, to the dismay of us linguists, National Grammar Day will mostly just result in prescriptivist dilettantes coming out in full force, tossing around ignorant grammatical proclamations with gusto, like so many dimes at a dime toss. It’s not going to get anyone excited about psycholinguistics or syntactic theory or any of the really awesome parts of language.
As such, I might as well do what I can with National Grammar Day and debunk a few of the grammar myths you might encounter today. That also gives me an excuse to go through and call up a few interesting posts that I’d forgotten about, both my own and others’. So here are 10 facts about the English language that go against the unjustified beliefs peddled by prescriptivists. I’m putting summaries of the posts here, with links to the original posts so that you can see why the prescriptivists’ claims should be regarded as myths, no matter how loudly they are proclaimed. To prevent misinterpretation, I am not going to state the myths here, only the corresponding truths:
You can use that in relative clauses with people. (Part I, Part II) Whether you’re speaking historically or restricting yourself to present usage, you’re mistaken if you think that is strictly for things. Phrases like the people that I know are actually more common in contemporary English than the people who(m) I know.
10 items or less lines are perfectly fine, grammatically speaking. The idea that less can’t be used with count nouns isn’t well supported; it’s a rule that hasn’t ever been strictly followed, especially for count nouns that can be perceived as masses. Groceries lend themselves to perception as a mass, so it’s no surprise that “10 items or less” is favored now, just as it has been historically. Please stop complaining about this.
Different than is perfectly acceptable. There are three major arguments claiming from is the only preposition that can be used with different. They’re all invalid. Not only that, but historical usage justifies the continued usage of different than.
Alright is all right. Alright is a common, 100-year-old alternate spelling of all right, presumably created on analogy to already and although. I think to many people (including myself), the two spellings have slightly different meanings and could reasonably be considered two separate and equally valid words.
Over can mean “more than”. The idea that over can’t mean “more than” is such rubbish that I wouldn’t have believed anyone believed it, were I not constantly dealing with prescriptivist idiocy. Truth is, over has been used to mean “more than” for 1000 years.
Nauseous can mean “sickened”. nauseous has had two meanings for the past 150 years, both “sickened” and “sickening”. Anyone concerned that having two meanings will lead to terrible confusion is either naive or shedding crocodile tears. If you can’t figure out what “I feel nauseous” is supposed to mean, you’re actively trying to misinterpret it.
From Language Log:
You can end a sentence with a preposition, Dryden be damned! I wrote about this in the context of the question “Where are you at?”, but it’s a more general problem than that, and is one of the best-known grammatical bugaboos. No serious scholar of the English language holds this view.
They can be singular in certain situations. To quote an idol of mine, Geoff Pullum: “Avoid singular they if you want to; nobody is making you use it. But don’t ever think that it is new (it goes back to early English centuries ago), or that it is illogical (there is no logical conflict between being syntactically singular and semantically plural), or that it is ungrammatical (it is used by the finest writers who ever used English, writers who uncontroversially knew what they were doing).”
Often a passive sentence is better than its active counterpart. In my younger years, I was repeatedly admonished for using the passive voice in my writing. The admonishers were mistaken, though. Many famous detractors of the passive voice (the passive is opposed by many) consistently use the passive voice in appropriate circumstances. Don’t be scared away from it. Honestly, it’s very useful.
And one from the Volokh Conspiracy:
Split infinitives when you feel like it. Honestly, if you think that it’s improper to split an infinitive in English, you need help. This has never been a rational or justifiable rule of English, and just looking at competent English writing should be enough to disabuse you of this notion. Split infinitives are commonly quite beautiful, especially when compared to the often-barbarous sound of an unsplit infinitive.
[Update 03/04/2010: For National Grammar Day 2010, I’ve listed 10 more bogus grammar myths, addressing topics such as sentence-adverbial hopefully, healthy/healthful, between/among, and more on singular they.]
[Update 03/04/2011: For National Grammar Day 2011, I’ve listed another 10 grammar myths, addressing topics such as Ebonics, gender-neutral language, and center around.]
[Update 03/04/2012: And again for 2012. Ten more myths, looking at matters such as each other, anyways, and I’m good.]
64 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 4, 2009 at 1:10 pm
dizzle
Ahhh this prescriptivist grammar nazi disagrees with you in so many ways.
March 4, 2009 at 2:31 pm
NGD « Arnold Zwicky’s Blog
[…] year Geoff Pullum and I mocked the project on Language Log; this year Gabe Doyle has already gotten a posting out on his blog Motivated Grammar (a blog subtitled Prescriptivism Must […]
March 4, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Gabe
All right, but I hope you realize you’re wrong.
March 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The Ridger
I agree with you. Fight the good fight! Death to “grammararians” who have no clue how English functions.
March 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The Ridger
ummm. Grammarians. I do know how to spell it.
March 4, 2009 at 6:01 pm
dizzle
“grammararians”
LOL!
Grammar Girl would disagree with many of the points also. I bet you try to sneak in more than ten items into that grocery line with the lame “mass” excuse. No sir, it is ten items or fewer. Heretic!
March 4, 2009 at 6:03 pm
dizzle
Additionally, I am NOT a “that.” So there. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.
March 4, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Gabe
dizzle: Oh dear. Not a second round of taunting. I quake.
But putting the snark and sarcasm aside, I don’t doubt that Grammar Girl disagrees with me as well. That’s fine; questions of grammar can only be properly resolved after vigorous debate. You and Grammar Girl are free to disagree, but you have to show some evidence to support your positions. Each of the positions stated above is backed up by facts of the language, as detailed in the posts they link to. So far, your evidence against these positions is:
1) You don’t agree.
2) Grammar Girl probably doesn’t agree either.
3) The Ridger or I might have poor supermarket etiquette.
4) You are not a “that”.
1) and 2) only matter if you have an argument to back up your position; there will be no appeals to authority here unless the authority offers justification. I don’t use the express lanes at supermarkets, and from my limited interactions with her, The Ridger seems like a morally upstanding citizen, so 3)’s probably not true.
4) would be good evidence, except for two things. First, you are not a relative pronoun. Second, as I mentioned in the first post on “that”, “who(m)” wasn’t an option until the 15th century and wasn’t common until the 17th. Everyone before then was totally fine with “that”, so clearly “that” as a relative pronoun doesn’t impinge on one’s personhood. Or else every English speaker before the 15th century wasn’t a person. That seems unlikely.
As a result, your claims are unconvincing, and if may speak freely, unscientific. Please present some evidence.
March 4, 2009 at 9:35 pm
goofy
Great post. The NGD site has another prescription that needs to be debunked: that/which.
March 4, 2009 at 9:36 pm
dizzle
Oh dear. It seems someone is not a Monty Python fan. I was joking my dear sweetums sugarpuff honeycakes.
Grammar Girl does in fact offer justification. I am not an English major, just someone very interested in copy-editing. The Ridger’s arguments are arguments ad populum. I will take an argument from educated authority.
It appears that since you are not a Monty Python fan that you have taken seriously posts which were all done in fun. Which is ironic since it is us prescriptivists who supposedly are all work and no play.
I will now take my leave of a blog that cannot see a joke coming and takes themselves way too seriously while allegedly that others take themselves seriously.
Toodles. And do watch The Search for the Holy Grail. You will laugh. It might even do you some good.
March 4, 2009 at 9:37 pm
dizzle
Whoops I see grammar errors in my post. Oh well, I shall cry myself to sleep.
March 5, 2009 at 1:51 am
Gabe
dizzle: Sorry, I’d gotten the joke. I love Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I’d hoped my response would reflect that, but alas, I can’t help but sound harsh in writing. I knew I ought to have added an emoticon. (:P probably would have been good, but I don’t know if it means the same thing to others as it does to me.)
But at the same time, I suppose I wasn’t joking. This sort of thing makes me cranky. I don’t claim that prescriptivists don’t make enough jokes; to the contrary, I think they make far too many. Arnold Zwicky addressed this in his post yesterday ( http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/ngd/ ), where he wrote:
“The SPOGG blog is a curious blend of what’s clearly intended to be light-hearted and somewhat self-mocking jokiness with what sounds like dead-serious advocacy of what Martha Brockenbrough takes to be the standard rules of English (which makes the just-kidding defense of the enterprise ring hollow to me).”
The problem is that it’s very difficult to separate the jokes from the advice sometimes, like this case here. If you were joking with your objections, then that’s my fault for not picking up on their tongue-in-cheek nature. In that case, I sincerely apologize for my overly harsh response. But if you weren’t joking, and really do disagree on these matters, then I make no such apology, because you hold an opinion with significant evidence against it and no evidence stated for it. (Unless, of course, you have evidence to present in favor of your view, in which case the apology may still be in order.) That’s what prescriptivists do all the time, and I just don’t have the patience for it anymore.
March 5, 2009 at 7:55 am
Jesse Hines
Sentence fragments. They’re fine.
And so is starting a sentence with a conjunction.
If done for artistic or emphasis’ sake, they can be effective. Take this passage from one of America’s most highly regarded columnists, George F Will, where he does both:
“Furthermore, Hoover’s 1932 increase in the top income tax rate, from 25 percent to 63 percent, was unhelpful. And FDR’s hyperkinetic New Deal created uncertainties that paralyzed private-sector decision making. Which sounds familiar.”
March 5, 2009 at 4:19 pm
The Ridger
“The Ridger’s arguments are arguments ad populum.” Huh? I made no argument; I merely cheered.
March 5, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Watch Yer Language - National Day After National Grammar Day
[…] at Motivated Grammar, offers 10 grammar […]
March 6, 2009 at 1:43 am
Gabe
goofy: You are quite right; that badly needs debunked. I’m been meaning to work on that one for some time and keep putting it off. Would you mind terribly nagging me if I don’t get it done soon?
Jesse: Couldn’t agree more.
The Ridger: Perhaps your cheers were ad populum?
March 6, 2009 at 5:50 am
goofy
Gabe, I talk about that/which in my NGD post from last year, feel free to borrow from that.
http://bradshawofthefuture.blogspot.com/2008/01/national-grammar-day.html
March 6, 2009 at 6:51 am
words « RockStarKevin
[…] Ten Grammar Myths Debunked “Here are 10 facts about the English language that go against the unjustified beliefs peddled by prescriptivists.” […]
March 6, 2009 at 8:03 am
brendt
I am by no means a prescriptivist — my grammar can be atrocious at times. But I find it hilarious/interesting that your “debunking” often consists of “because I say so” or “because this 15 year-old-book (about a language that’s several hundred years old) says so”.
March 6, 2009 at 9:24 am
Gabe
brendt: Did you read the posts I linked to? The arguments against the myths are given in full detail there — these aren’t declarations, but rather summaries of the conclusions of the previous posts.
Also, I have no idea what you’re talking about with a 15-year-old book. The youngest usage discussed is “alright”, which is 100 years old.
March 6, 2009 at 9:25 am
carissa
brendt: it’s not because any one person “says so.” it’s because real speakers of English constantly, naturally (for hundreds of years, even) have made these very ‘mistakes’ that it becomes ridiculous to say it’s ‘not English’ or ‘ungrammatical.’ i have no idea how grammar became this thing with so many rules that must be memorized that only an elite few are privy to ‘good’ grammar, and everyone else speaks ‘atrociously.’ take your language back, people!
March 6, 2009 at 9:44 am
brendt
Case in point for “I say so” is the last link.
Unsplitting also often makes the revised version sound stuffier, at least to my ears
Not only is the subjectivity of your ears a non-argument, but the fact that something “sounds stuffy” doesn’t make it wrong.
Case in point for the “15-year-old book” is in that same link, in which you cite books that are 20, 24, and 11 years old as proof-text of your point.
March 6, 2009 at 9:46 am
brendt
carissa, my mom wouldn’t buy your argument. It is tantamount to saying that if your friends jumped off a bridge, you would, too. After all, if they did it, it must not be wrong.
March 6, 2009 at 10:06 am
Gabe
brendt: That last link isn’t actually a post of my own, it’s from Eugene Volokh. And he hasn’t engaged in ipsedixitism; he makes two arguments against the proscription against splitting infinitives. The first is that not even the most rabid of well-known prescriptivists — those who, if this really were a rule, would surely be citing it everywhere — believe infinitives can’t be split. The second is that there is no logical injunction against the split infinitive.
What you’ve cited is only one part of his argument, and one that he himself cites as non-evidence in the very next sentence:
[…] a personal judgment that I wouldn’t foist on others, but that’s more than ample to justify Justice Breyer in writing “to fully achieve.”
His point is that to some people, some times, the split infinitive sounds better. As there isn’t any reason to bar split infinitives and sometimes they sound better to a writer, there is no reason not to use them.
Lastly, the books he cites are recent, just as this post and his post are recent, but look at historical and modern usage. If you really want the full brunt of evidence against the unsplit infinitive, check out the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage’s entry on split infinitives: http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA867&vq=split+infinitive&as_brr=1&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0
I just didn’t link to that entry because it is a bit long. But boy, is it convincing.
March 6, 2009 at 10:09 am
goofy
But there’s nothing similar between using language and jumping off a bridge. As Gabe says, language is nurtured by imitation.
March 6, 2009 at 12:19 pm
More On "They" As Singular - John Piper, TNIV | Scripture Zealot
[…] do a little roundup of these posts is because I came across this today and it made me think of it: National Grammar Day 2009: Ten Common Grammar Myths, Debunked HT: Challies.com They can be singular in certain situations. To quote an idol of mine, Geoff […]
March 6, 2009 at 1:56 pm
ConceptJunkie
You’re right. 10 items or less is perfectly fine. Why, just today I got in line with 9.75 items. ;-)
Although I sort of believed some of these proscriptions (ending with a preposition and splitting infinitives), they never seemed logical enough to be hard rules.
The “over” thing I’ve never heard of, and the singular “they”… well, I’ll take your word for it.
I’ve always been fascinated by language and would recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/Atoms-Language-Minds-Hidden-Grammar/dp/0465005217) to anyone who is likewise interested.
March 6, 2009 at 10:08 pm
tikimexican
Lol, it seems like you’ve gotten a flood of right-wing-conservative-christian-prescriptivist-coward-two-faced posters. Hey all you fat americans, try studying language and it’s changes instead of just eating fried foods and judging other people’s use of grammar.
Cock-smokers.
March 6, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Alan Davey
“Prescriptivism must die” ? Who prescribed THAT ? Let prescriptivism live !
Anyway, if “Prescriptivism must die” why are you telling us how we should use English ?
Hey, I’ll do whatever one can to get people to better understand what I am on about.
March 7, 2009 at 11:55 am
Gabe
ConceptJunkie: NO! DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT! That is how these idiot proscriptions gain traction: from people just taking other people’s word for it. I’m not some sort of grammar oracle, I’m a flawed human being like anyone else. Go look at the data, at the facts, and be convinced!
tikimexican: It’s not winter here anymore! Take off the ski mask!
Alan: I’m not saying anything about how you should use English. I’m saying how you can use English.
March 7, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Madge
I was taught you are to never start a sentence with an “and”….but I see it very often now. You even did it with your first sentence of the blog.
So what is going on with that? (Thank you if you take the time to answer!)
March 8, 2009 at 5:48 am
brendt
But there’s nothing similar between using language and jumping off a bridge.
goofy, you miss (or purposefully avoid) my point. The argument that something is acceptable because many people have done it for a long time is pure relativism.
Back when my mother ostensibly had to warn me about bridge-jumping, I was a child. And I learned way back then that there’s a reason that “relativism” and “ridiculous” both start with “r”.
So, actually, yes, there IS something similar between bridge-jumping and language.
March 8, 2009 at 5:51 am
brendt
Gabe, now that I see your reaction to tiki’s horrendously pointless ad hominem blathering, I better understand how this blog is run.
I apologize for trying to infuse a bit of logic in here. It won’t happen again.
March 8, 2009 at 7:40 am
goofy
We tend to use language like the other people in our speech community use language, if we want to be understood. That’s normal. But we don’t tend to jump off bridges because other people do it.
March 8, 2009 at 10:15 am
The Ridger
Madge: that rule is based on the notion that each sentence should be “a complete thought”. But people don’t write or speak in encapsulated single thoughts – they communicate in texts, in paragraphs, in extended discourse. Conjunctions are cohesive markers, telling the listener/reader how to connect the sentences together (Tom was afraid because John was angry vs. Tom was afraid although John was angry vs. Tom was afraid while John was angry…). There’s not only no reason for the conjunction not to come first, it actually makes the listener/reader’s job easier if it does. If my second sentence had begun “People, however” would it have been clearer?
March 8, 2009 at 10:21 am
The Ridger
“there’s a reason that “relativism” and “ridiculous” both start with “r”.”
Would you care to enlighten us? Or did you actually mean to imply that all words beginning with R are ridiculous?
March 8, 2009 at 11:00 am
brendt
did you actually mean to imply that all words beginning with R are ridiculous?
That’s what you gleaned from that statement ?!?!
March 8, 2009 at 12:03 pm
The Ridger
I didn’t “glean” anything from it. It appears meaningless to me. I can see nothing in your anecdote to give any reason.
March 8, 2009 at 12:31 pm
tikimexican
brendt, you’re a cheese-face and I’m not fond of your picture. Colloquial english precedes written english in what is picked up in the vernacular for each. Someone’s “ears” means that they either can get the information they want from someone speaking/writing without too much effort deciphering their syntax. Also if you care to check out my blog I have many posts explaining why The Ridger didn’t glean the iformation you wanted to convey. It’s because you’re not funny so when you try to be people look for some substance to what you said.
FAIL-man! Your powers are wasted here, go fail the world at large.
March 8, 2009 at 12:36 pm
brendt
you’re a cheese-face and I’m not fond of your picture
if you care to check out my blog
Thanks, I needed a laugh.
March 17, 2009 at 11:13 am
Jim Beamguard
Good post! I’m interested in this comment: “the people who(m) I know.” The poor m is housed in the parenthesis of death. Who wants to save it?
March 18, 2009 at 8:42 am
Quinne
what are prescriptivists and what do they do? I’m new at this. I do like your Blogs they are helping me with my MFA Thesis. Thanks.
Quinne
March 20, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Gabe
Jim: Not me. I’m quite content to let “whom” fall out of the language.
Quinne: Prescriptivists are grammarians who go around doling out prescriptions about what is and is not correct grammar, usually without having done any research into the matter. Lynne Truss, author of “Eats, Shoots and Leaves”, is one example. There’s a bit more about it in this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
March 28, 2009 at 8:50 am
ulyssesmsu
Gabe–I love you, man. A kindred spirit! And you are SO RIGHT about these myths, and many others that you have written about.
I’m going to show this post to my students and encourage them to read your blog.
Keep that good, common sense about grammar and writing. It’s a rare quality.
Dr. Timothy Hadley
Missouri State University
November 13, 2009 at 6:01 am
Five Grammar Myths Exploded | Professional Blog Service
[…] I have been using “alright” for years, and was told recently it was wrong. However, Gabe Doyle, a 4th year computational psycholinguistics graduate student at UC-San Diego (i.e. heR…. “Alright is a common, 100-year-old alternate spelling of all right, presumably created on […]
March 1, 2010 at 2:06 am
skdadl
Anyone concerned that having two meanings will lead to terrible confusion are either naive or shedding crocodile tears.
The subject of the principal clause of that sentence is “anyone,” which is singular. The verb should therefore be “is.”
Also, you’re very fond of the comma splice, I see. Have you ever met a semi-colon you liked?
March 1, 2010 at 3:19 am
ulyssesmsu
@skdadl–Gabe will probably answer your post, but you’re wrong on both points that you make.
“Anyone” is not prescriptively single, any more than other indefinite pronouns like “none.” The “rule” that I must say “None of you IS allowed to watch TV today” is pure nonsense, when one is speaking to a group of people–the type of prescriptivist idiocy that Gabe is always debunking. It’s perfectly fine, in a group context, to use a plural verb with an indefinite pronoun, as Gabe does here with “anyone.”
Second, I don’t see any “comma splices,” unless you’re referring to the ONE sentence that contains “Dryden be damned”–not exactly qualifying as “very fond,” eh? And that sentence isn’t a comma splice; the comma simply takes the place of a conjunction, as in “I came, I saw, I conquered.”
Or were you referring to all of Gabe’s blog as a whole? I hope not. You’d be very wrong about that.
March 1, 2010 at 10:21 am
Gabe
skdadl: I will gladly admit that that “anyone … are” was an error, and I’ve rectified it above. While some other quantifier words/phrases can take plural agreement, I can’t do it with “anyone”.
But as for your comma splice question, I assume you are insane. As ulyssesmsu so helpfully pointed out, there are no comma splices in this post, and there are two semicolons.
March 1, 2010 at 11:21 am
ulyssesmsu
Aw, don’t admit defeat, Gabe–
As you yourself have correctly said about the “none is/are” issue [https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/none-is-none-are-grammar-according-to-clarkson/], it can take either a singular or a plural verb.
Why not the same with words like any/every/no/some-body/one/thing–? All are indefinite pronouns. The only issue is their arbitrary categorization into singular-plural.
Besides, these usages vary. For example, the British (and Canadians) say, “The team ARE playing well tonight.” Americans don’t consider that usage to be incorrect. So why is “Anyone . . . are . . . ” incorrect, but “None . . . are . . . ” acceptable?
I know that “Anyone . . . are . . . ” sounds funny, because we’re not accustomed to hearing it, but I argue that, grammatically and structurally, “Anyone . . . are . . . ” (and its other analogies) is just as correct as “None . . . are . . . .”
Stand firm, Gabe!
March 1, 2010 at 11:32 am
goofy
I have to agree with Gabe. “Anyone” is syntactically singular.
Anyone who agrees with me is wrong.
*Anyone who agree with me is wrong.
I think that Gabe’s sentence exhibits some sort of proximity agreement, where the verb agrees with a closer noun (“two meanings”). In speech this happens a lot probably, but in writing it is considered an error.
March 2, 2010 at 4:03 pm
ulyssesmsu
Yes, “anyone” is thought of as singular. I’m arguing that it CAN be considered to be plural, on the analogy of “none,” when one is addressing a group.
I realize that no one thinks of it that way at the moment, but I’m arguing that they could. Why not?
Besides, your hypothetical sentences are constructed incorrectly. You wouldn’t say:
*Anyone who [dis]agree with me is wrong.
You would say:
*Anyone [of you] who [dis]agree with me ARE wrong.
Would this sentence work:
*Any [of you] who disagree with me are wrong. — ?
If so, then why not:
*Anyone of you who disagree with me are wrong. — ?
March 3, 2010 at 12:16 pm
goofy
No, ulyssesmsu, I wouldn’t say:
*Anyone who disagrees with me are wrong.
Let’s simplify it by removing the relative clause:
*Anyone are wrong.
Gabe’s original sentence was “Anyone concerned that having two meanings will lead to terrible confusion are either naive or shedding crocodile tears.” Let’s simplify it by removing the relative clause:
*Anyone are either naive or shedding crocodile tears.
This seems clearly ungrammatical to me.
You seem to be talking about a different construction: “anyone of you.”
March 3, 2010 at 1:47 pm
The Ridger
My opinion, for what it’s worth is: “none” can be grammatically singular or plural (though personally I think it’s plural). “anyone, everyone, someone” is grammatically indefinite. In English, indefinite pronouns generally take singular verbs and plural referring pronouns – so, “none is” and “none are” are both right, depending on context; “everyone was in the room when the fire alarm went off and they all left the building” or “anyone who disagrees with me is free to state their reasons”.
March 3, 2010 at 1:49 pm
The Ridger
Plus, you’re trying logic. English grammar (no natural language’s grammar) is built on that kind of rules. See xkcd…
March 3, 2010 at 1:50 pm
The Ridger
is NOT built… sigh….
March 3, 2010 at 11:57 pm
MikeyC
Celebrate something else:
http://www.englishproject.org/
March 4, 2010 at 6:44 am
Why the Heck Am I Observing National Grammar Day, Anyway? « Literal-Minded
[…] about psycholinguistics or syntactic theory or any of the really awesome parts of language. (Gabe Doyle, Motivated Grammar, 2009) “If you see a sign with a catastrophic apostrophe, send a kind note […]
August 18, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Grammar myths | Lexifab!
[…] I’ve collected a few “grammar myths” from the amazing websites Grammar Girl, Motivated Grammar, and […]
October 14, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Douglas Anthony Cooper
Just to render you apoplectic: your second sentence is grammatically incorrect. “I can’t help but” is wrong, babe.
October 14, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Gabe
Douglas: Nope. “Can’t help but” is fine. See page 220 of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage.
January 22, 2012 at 10:46 am
nauseous « Arnold Zwicky's Blog
[…] (He repeated this judgment in “National Grammar Day 2009: Ten Common Grammar Myths Debunked”, here.) […]
September 14, 2012 at 9:53 am
17 SCHOOL WRITING RULES YOU NEED TO UNLEARN IN THE REAL WORLD «
[…] Alright is not all right: […]
November 13, 2013 at 11:59 am
17 School Writing Rules You Need to Unlearn in the Real World - Online College Search - Your Accredited Online Degree Directory
[…] Alright is not all right: […]
April 21, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Douglas Anthony Cooper
Gabe: You’re right. Strange. Looking at this, I can’t remember why it struck me as wrong in the first place — I certainly use the idiom myself. Must have been an off day.