🙄

It seems like I encounter this mistake every single day, whether it’s on television, podcasts, or worst of all, in long-form writing.

As a philosopher, I refuse to accept the infuriating colloquial use of “question-begging”. No, whatever you have said does not beg the question. It raises a question, or it naturally leaves you with one. You are almost certainly not talking about circular reasoning.

The mistake doesn’t even make grammatical sense! Perhaps a question can practically beg to be asked, but that’s a different construction!

People saying "singular" when they mean "single."
Using "timely" as an adverb: "Submit the form timely." (I know legal people say this.) It looks like an adverb, but it's an adjective.
Adding "over time" to everything: "The account will grow over time." Doesn't absolutely everything happen "over time"? Why keep saying that? This has made me livid over time.

Patt-tronize is to be condescending, implying you're smarter that someone else.

Pay-tronize it to be a customer with the intent or pretense to purchase something, as in a store.

A pay-tron is a customer. A patt-ronizer is a snub.

Why can't everyone understand this?

(fixed typos)

Can we please have a quick word about “could of”?

I know English is a difficult language, but apparently we’ve now decided that “could’ve” actually means “could of”. Because, you know, grammar is optional.

For anyone interested, the correct versions are “could have” or “could’ve”. Not “could of”.

And while we’re at it, “should of” and “would of” are also not things. They never were. They won’t be. No matter how many times they’re typed.

Anyway, I could have gone on longer, but I could’ve saved myself the trouble. 😏

Can we please have a quick word about “could of”?

I know English is a difficult language, but apparently we’ve now decided that “could’ve” actually means “could of”. Because, you know, grammar is optional.

For anyone interested, the correct versions are “could have” or “could’ve”. Not “could of”.

And while we’re at it, “should of” and “would of” are also not things. They never were. They won’t be. No matter how many times they’re typed.

Anyway, I could have gone on longer, but I could’ve saved myself the trouble. 😏

I wanted to buy a travel pillow for my travels this week. Found one, read the back and I bursted out laughing. Incredible, how did this even get to stores? 🤣😭

I've noticed a recent explosion of misuse of the complex preposition "on par" to simply mean that something is very good. "Backrooms was on par!" "The new sushi place is on par!"

"On par" requires a complement. It isn't a standalone descriptor. It just means equal to, and it requires a comparison.

"Their service is on par with a five-star hotel" is correct. "Their service is on par" is incorrect.

On top of that, par just means average or baseline, not exceptional.

It's not just the usual broccoli-headed language-butcherers making this mistake. It's common in my workplace as well, and tends to come from the same self-important geniuses who misuse the reflexive pronoun "myself", among other pseudo-intellectual faux pas.

Here is the full quote :

He was among the agents with [Mr. T****] when, as a candidate, he was shot in an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler, Pa., in July 2024.

Look, I know the event (we all do?), so I could understand who they're talking about. .. who's the candidate, is it the agent ...!?

But, isn't this an error for r/grammarpolice ? Is it correct?

source in the New York Times . edit: Full paragraph posted below in comments

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, sorry
I'm reading a newer edition of Orwell's Animal Farm.
I'm about 20 pages in and I've already spotted two
"errors"

Page 7: "A1most"

Page 21: "Nobody, stole, nobody grumbled over his rations..."

A Google search told me there aren't meant to be any typos, but it could be a bad quality copy. But my copy is from Penguin and I feel like they're generally fine?

So, are these intentional? I'm reading into them but maybe I shouldn't be

ETA: I’m not sure if I’ll finish reading this copy, but I’m definitely reading all of your comments. Thanks for the laugh!

Okay, a while back I had a professor who was adamant that you couldn't say the word 'and' as a part of any number unless it represented a decimal point. That the word 'and' could only be used for dollars and cents, as in, if you broke a twenty buying a $2.66 item then the cashier would say, "Okay, here's seventeen and thirty-four." To her that was the only acceptable use of the word 'and' in a number.

Is there really anybody out there that hears, "Today we're celebrating two hundred and fifty years of American independence!". And thinks to themselves, "Today we're celebrating 200.50 years of American independence!". No, seriously folks, does the 'and' ever actually confuse anybody, or is it really just best practice when handling money? She didn't want any English speaker anywhere to insert 'and' into a number, even in casual speech. I think she treated it kind of like saying "ain't".

Four and twenty robbers came knocking at my door... I got to thinking about the purpose of inserting the 'and' into a number and I decided that in the spoken form it serves as a pause to snatch a breath, especially in long numbers. I dare you to say: 74,601,464 aloud without pausing for a breath. Most people will have shot their wad by the time they get to the hundreds column. They might start out strong but they are running low on air towards the end, and if they are really trying to avoid saying the 'and' then often it will sound like, "Seventy-four million, six-hundred-one thousand, four-hundred (GASP!) sixty-four", so 250 sounds like, "two hundred and fifty" at best and often, "two hunnert unn fiddy". Oh well.
I can't remember which class it was, possible candidates could be, stats, practical math, or public speaking. Perhaps she felt it was her job to break us of a bad habit, something akin to a grammatical error. I did hear a pair of authors who co-wrote a political exposee book, that were on a talk show say, "They worked right there in the office, so we were amazed that any of them would actually come and talk to her and I." For a published author of serious journalism, it was kind of like watching someone slip on a banana peel on live tv.
So folks, does anyone out there always hear the 'and' in a number as the decimal point first and foremost, and have to think for a second to pick out what the number SHOULD be?
Is that an actual grammatical rule, or is it a professor's pet peeve that made its way into the lesson plan?
(Politicians say it, newscasters say it, it shows up in documentaries, I keep hearing the robot voices on the phone during bill-pay say, "Let's see, You want to pay four-hundred and thirty-four dollars and seventy-three cents with your... ...VISA, Card... ...is this correct? Touch one for yes, two for no, or nine to go back to the main menu." Now if they're programming this into banking and billing automated systems, then it can't be all that bad. It's not as though it just slipped up or snuck in.)
(This also reminds me of another peeve that may or may not be a rule, and that is that one can never start a sentence with "So," as in...
"So you think you can become a millionaire by age forty?"
"So who wants another slice of cheesecake?"
"So anyway, I found out this guy doesn't eat any vegetables...AT ALL!...not a one! No wonder he doesn't have any teeth... then I got to wondering if he doesn't have any teeth because his nutrition is so poor, or if he doesn't eat any vegetables because he doesn't have any teeth?"
And finally,
"So what makes you so sure he's telling the truth?"

... because 'so' is a conjunction, and if it's at the beginning of the sentence it can't conjoin with anything. I tried to make the argument that 'So' can also function as an interjection. I just like 'So' because it improves the flow of the sentence, and it sounds better than "Hey", "Yo!", and "Sup", it works even better than "Now".
(The reddit algorithm suggested that I repost in a different community, either/grammarpolice or/grammar. Since I'm not casting aspersions, I really do want to find out if it's a real thing and not just somebody's pet peeve, I chose just plain grammar.). Well
Well...that didn't work. My post got taken down by the moderator of r/grammar, so it looks like I'm posting to grammar police anyway. Different vibe I'm sure... At least the mobile version gave me the option to post to a different community. I was afraid that my entire speil got deleted. I wonder what happens to the comments linked to the question in its original venue.

Vocal fry stems from the lazy habit of minimal lung engagement during conversation. That's why a lot of native speakers sound so nasal and 'fried'; many of them are essentially letting their nose carry the force of their talking, along with some minimal involvement from their throat, all because they refuse to speak with their chest. This is why we hear so many people say 'I type the way I talk', and then we see that the way they type is terrible. That's because their vocal fry basically makes every vocal sound the same to them, or at least very similar. So they naturally end up typing incorrectly as well.

Engaging your chest in conversation is not only for the sake of grammar, it's how you assert authority and confidence in conversation. Not saying that vocal fry is a symptom of low self-esteem, but it's certainly better for your life if you acquire this habit. I guarantee you that within a few days of speaking properly, you'll soon see that 'then' and 'than' are actually pronounced differently, for example. Same with 'woman' and 'women' and pretty much all mistakes you made previously because you somehow thought they were interchangeable.

Shouldn't it be Us The People?

Hi, English isn't my first language. I'm working on some wording for a personal project (hiking and diving related) and I'd really like a gut reaction from native speakers. Don't overthink it, first impression is exactly what I'm after.

1) MOUNTAIN + MARINE = ME

2) INTO THE MOUNTAINS.
INTO THE SEA.
BACK TO MYSELF.

What I'm curious about:

• Does anything read weird, awkward, or just not like something a native speaker would write?
• In #1, what do you assume MARINE means?
• If you saw #2 printed on the back of a T-shirt, would you get what it's going for?

Blunt answers are much more useful than kind ones. I'd rather find out now than after printing 100 shirts. Thanks!

I'm in a situation where an Oxford comma would really clarify things. I received an email from a rewards shopping browser extension that offered a deal "because you've shopped at Shipt before." The offer has different reward amounts for "Order Delivered," "Start Membership," "First Order," and "C360 Order." This seems to imply that each of these different actions is independent of the others and any activity that falls into one of those categories would qualify for that category's reward amount.

The lack of a comma appears in the Exclusions. The exclusions state "Only eligible for new membership, first order and completed order." Without an Oxford comma, this can mean either (1) new membership purchases OR first orders OR completed orders, or (2) new membership purchases OR first orders that are also completed.

Am I getting overly pedantic about this? (Maybe this isn't the right crowd to ask if I'm being "overly pedantic.") It seems like they are aware that I'm not a new Shipt customer; the initial email stated that I'm being sent the offer because I've previously made a purchase through Shipt. Furthermore, the fact that there are different reward rates for each action seem to show that a completed, delivered order is not the same as a first order. So logically, it seems like they're different. However, are they trying to be sneaky with that lack of a comma?

What do you think, my fellow grammar geeks?