Do grammatical errors bother you?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

I was taught it's impolite to put oneself first.

Exactly. It's convention, not grammar. There are lots of things in written English (and other languages too, of course) that are grammatically correct, but, nonetheless look "wrong" for reasons that we probably find it difficult to even articulate. Eg, "big red bus" is "right", but "red big bus" is "wrong". Why is "red big bus" wrong? As a native English speaker all you can really say is that "it just is". If you dig deeper into it you could probably come up with a rule which says that adjectives of size must come before adjectives of colour, or something like that, but we aren't normally consciously aware of such rules; we just know instinctively what sounds right or wrong.

A matter that's arisen on another thread recently is differences in punctuation between British and American English. In the paragraph above, I've written:

"big red bus" is "right", but "red big bus" is "wrong".

To a speaker of American English that will look wrong because I've put the comma and full stop outside the quotes. To a British reader, though, it will appear (and indeed, is) correct. British and American English have different punctuation rules, and we "absorb" these without even being consciously aware that we're doing so.

It's a fun subject .

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A matter that's arisen on another thread recently is differences in punctuation between British and American English. In the paragraph above, I've written:

To a speaker of American English that will look wrong because I've put the comma and full stop outside the quotes. To a British reader, though, it will appear (and indeed, is) correct. British and American English have different punctuation rules, and we "absorb" these without even being consciously aware that we're doing so.

I don't know if it's because I've read British fiction over the years or if it just seems to make more sense to me, but I go with the British punctuation rule in cases like this. I think the American rule is illogical.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I don't know if it's because I've read British fiction over the years or if it just seems to make more sense to me, but I go with the British punctuation rule in cases like this. I think the American rule is illogical.

The British rule is that commas and full stops only go inside quotes if they form a part of the material being quoted. The American rule is that they always go inside the quotes.

[SneakySnake]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The British rule is that commas and full stops only go inside quotes if they form a part of the material being quoted. The American rule is that they always go inside the quotes.

I wouldn't make any sense if you wrote code that (the American) way.

Dunno about truth and justice!

[boxcorner]

Edited by boxcorner

[Seanette]

Originally Posted by GraceKrispy

When I comment on a book review that there are many grammatical errors in a book, I feel a bit like a Scrooge. Yes, it's an indie book, but why shouldn't it be held to the same standard? How else will indie books get the credit they deserve? I can't, in good conscience, not mention it when there are excessive errors. From the other reviews I see, I wonder if I'm truly the only one seeing these mistakes and being bothered by them, or if the others were all written by "do-good" spammers, uh, I mean reviewers.

I've personally come to associate something billing itself as "indie" with a "I'm just SO cool and hip and special that I shouldn't have to bother with bourgeois corporate notions like quality. Just having the cachet of that 'indie' label should be enough" mindset that puts me right off. I don't enjoy snobbishness of any variety (while admitting I tend to be a bit of a grammar snob myself when it comes to "professional" writing ), and I really don't enjoy the attitude that someone is just SO special that they're above such mundane things as competence.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Quite, also somewhere along the line, I've gathered the impression that double quotation marks are incorrect, unless they're being used to quote something someone has written, or said. Consequently, in a situation like this I would feel more inclined to use 'absorb', absorb or absorb, instead of "absorb". Not sure which is correct though. Perhaps you, or others, could educate me.

According to Wiki (whose grammar articles are generally pretty good):

Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense.

Crystals somehow "know" which shape to grow into.

In addition to conveying a neutral attitude and to call attention to a neologism, or slang, or special terminology (also known as jargon), quoting can also indicate words or phrases that are descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, metaphoric, or contain a pun:

Dawkins's concept of a meme could be described as an "evolving idea".

People also use quotation marks in this way to:

* distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be associated with it. For example, to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase presupposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with.
* indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's terminology, for example if a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else, perhaps without judgement (contrast this neutrally-distancing quoting to the negative use of scare quotes)

The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), 15th edition[4] acknowledges this type of use but cautions against overuse in section 7.58, "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense […] They imply 'This is not my term,' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."

So I think I was OK to use "right" and "wrong" here .

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Consequently, in a situation like this I would feel more inclined to use 'absorb', absorb or absorb, instead of "absorb". Not sure which is correct though. Perhaps you, or others, could educate me.

I'm not a native English speaker, but I was taught that in (British) English the first ( 'absorb' ) means that the use of the verb is figurative, the second and third (absorb, absorb) are a way to stress the importance of the word in a sentence (the bold character also means that "it should be read with a louder voice", as my teacher said), and the last ( "absorb" ) means that you are quoting someone else's words.

It's a bit different from my native language (Italian) where you use the last ( "absorb" ) also when you mean a figurative use of the word.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by GraceKrispy

When I comment on a book review that there are many grammatical errors in a book, I feel a bit like a Scrooge. Yes, it's an indie book, but why shouldn't it be held to the same standard? How else will indie books get the credit they deserve? I can't, in good conscience, not mention it when there are excessive errors. From the other reviews I see, I wonder if I'm truly the only one seeing these mistakes and being bothered by them, or if the others were all written by "do-good" spammers, uh, I mean reviewers.

You're not the only person bothered by them, but I suspect(*) the majority of those who are don't finish reading the book, don't bother reviewing it, then go on to slag off indie books, especially indie e-books, as being generally bad quality in terms of both content and publishing standards.

(* based on comments I've seen elsewhere)

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Although "My wife and I..." would be the more common usage, there's absolutely nothing grammatically wrong with "I and my wife...".

I had a string of English teachers who would have vehemently disagreed with you!

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

So (hone in) did evolve from "home in," but I think at the point that it's put into dictionaries, we can safely assume that it is not an error and is acceptable.

"Ain't" is also in the dictionary but even dictionaries will admit, despite common usage, it is incorrect. Try using "hone in" for "home in" in any English class and, same as if you used "ain't," you will get called on it.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

...My grandfather used to say, "It doesn't matter how many mistakes you make in life, so long as you don't make the same mistake twice". I find the latter becomes more difficult, the older I am...

Same here. I'm running out of fresh mistakes I haven't used yet.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I had a string of English teachers who would have vehemently disagreed with you!

I didn't say that it was good English; merely that it was not poor grammar. Grammatically speaking, if it's valid to say "A and B did something-or-other" then it's equally valid to say "B and A did something-or-other". This is a matter of English usage, not grammar.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I didn't say that it was good English; merely that it was not poor grammar. Grammatically speaking, if it's valid to say "A and B did something-or-other" then it's equally valid to say "B and A did something-or-other". This is a matter of English usage, not grammar.

An interesting question is where usage becomes grammar and grammar becomes usage. For example, the ordering of adjectives in English seems to be rule governed - if you were to describe an object that was green, small, round and a ball you might say the small, round, green ball. It would seem odd to say the green, round small ball. Similarly, there seems to be some kind of iconicity effect with the order of nouns - "the sun and the moon" seems right whilst "the moon and the sun" seems, in most contexts, slightly odd. "The Pope and the Bishop" as distinct from "the Bishop and the Pope" seems to partake of the same effect, which has got something to do with with the largest, most important or higher up on some implicit scale coming first.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I had a string of English teachers who would have vehemently disagreed with you!

Really? My son's English teacher told him the things such as grammar, punctuation, spelling, and structure were not important and all that was important was his ideas. When I went and talked to the teacher she was shocked that I thought, yes, those things were important.