Do grammatical errors bother you?

[Miss_Fletcher]

Originally Posted by JackNolte

Yeah, it bothers me. But you know, it also bothers me when a lot readers don't realize when an author is intentionally breaking the rules for effect. Voice trumps grammar. Just my opinion, of course.

Thank you, JackNolte! I agree with that comment more than you could ever know.

As a reader the occasional error really doesn't bother me. Though I can appreciate why it bugs other people.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JackNolte

Yeah, it bothers me. But you know, it also bothers me when a lot readers don't realize when an author is intentionally breaking the rules for effect. Voice trumps grammar. Just my opinion, of course.

But you have to be very skilled for that to work. And if the text throws the reader out of the story then it has failed for that reader.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by tompe

But you have to be very skilled for that to work. And if the text throws the reader out of the story then it has failed for that reader.

That's not necessarily the case - a good portion of literary fiction over the past fifty years - or longer, I'm thinking of James Joyce in particular - has sought to disrupt "the story" for a variety of reasons - all of them aesthetically valid.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by TGS

That's not necessarily the case - a good portion of literary fiction over the past fifty years - or longer, I'm thinking of James Joyce in particular - has sought to disrupt "the story" for a variety of reasons - all of them aesthetically valid.

Sure. I meant "...unless the intention is to throw the reader out of the story".

[Under the Covers]

I just saw this, which pretty much says it all, at least in terms of punctuation:


Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

[NewDay]

I believe that one thing fueling the rush to e-pub is the conclusion, on the part of aspiring authors who cannot get their work accepted by a legitimate publishing house, that they can thereby bypass editorial judgment and go "straight to the people." And who knows? If enough people see "him and me coulda went" in electronic print, they might conclude that it's acceptable. Say goodbye to the language as we've known it.

[andyh2000]

Originally Posted by radleyp

In an earlier discussion with HarryT in this thread, someone wrote the word "verbally" (i.e. in words, written or spoken) for "orally" (i.e. spoken). I have long found this use of "verbally" irritating as it does not express what is meant, and "orally" is what should be used.

verbal·ly adv.
Usage Note: Verbal has been used since the 16th century to refer to spoken, as opposed to written, communication, and the usage cannot be considered incorrect. But because verbal may also mean "by linguistic means," it may be ambiguous in some contexts. Thus the phrase modern technologies for verbal communication may refer only to devices such as radio, the telephone, and the loudspeaker, or it may refer to devices such as the telegraph, the teletype, and the fax machine. In such contexts it may be clearer to use the word oral to convey the narrower sense of communication by spoken means.

-- thefreedictionary.com


Andrew

[yekim54]

Originally Posted by Under the Covers

I just saw this, which pretty much says it all, at least in terms of punctuation:


Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

There's only one cat, so it should read: It's raining, cat and dogs!

[Under the Covers]

Originally Posted by yekim54

There's only one cat, so it should read: It's raining, cat and dogs!

Yeah, I noticed that, but since I'm not a cartoonist, I decided to just appreciate the amusing commentary.

[bjones6416]

This particular topic really IS a glass house, isn't it?

Person A: It really bugs me when an author says blah, blah, blah.

Person B: I don't mind when I read blah, blah, blah, but I am offended by someone saying something really bugs them. Bugs are insects, you moron!

Person C: Regardless of whether or not an author says blah, blah, blah, it is perfectly correct to say you are bugged by something. The word moron, however, has been incorrectly used in this case. Moron actually means...

And so it goes!

[GraceKrispy]

HA! Yes, it's stressful to try to participate on this thread. I have to double proof everything....

[SneakySnake]

Originally Posted by bjones6416

This particular topic really IS a glass house, isn't it?

Person A: It really bugs me when an author says blah, blah, blah.

Person B: I don't mind when I read blah, blah, blah, but I am offended by someone saying something really bugs them. Bugs are insects, you moron!

Person C: Regardless of whether or not an author says blah, blah, blah, it is perfectly correct to say you are bugged by something. The word moron, however, has been incorrectly used in this case. Moron actually means...

And so it goes!

Double naughty thoughts cross my mind. Look up the etymology or the entymology?

Originally Posted by GraceKrispy

HA! Yes, it's stressful to try to participate on this thread. I have to double proof everything....

Yes, but I think errors in fora postings are OK. We are not publishing our comments. Although sometimes it is difficult to tell if it is an error or ignorance. And yes I agree, but it has made me think more carefully about how I write.

[lene1949]

Originally Posted by radleyp

In an earlier discussion with HarryT in this thread, someone wrote the word "verbally" (i.e. in words, written or spoken) for "orally" (i.e. spoken). I have long found this use of "verbally" irritating as it does not express what is meant, and "orally" is what should be used.

The clients I support are non-verbal and take their medications orally.

[Under the Covers]

Originally Posted by lene1949

The clients I support are non-verbal and take their medications orally.

Beautiful!

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by lene1949

The clients I support are non-verbal and take their medications orally.

You beat me to it with the 'oral' reference....