Skip to main content

ur doin it wrong. and so am i.

i saw this infographic on common grammatical mistakes which writers should be careful not to make on their blogs. i'm pretty sure i've made all of them at one point or another, despite my criticisms of others' grammatical failings.

10 Common Blog Writing Mistakes (Infographic)
Source: www.grammarcheck.net

i do find that some of the rules here could be better explained: the difference between cumulative and coordinate adjectives is not immediately obvious from their examples. also, there's a much clearer way to illustrate when to use "me and "i", that an english-teaching friend of mine taught me; if you're unsure what to do, take the other person out of the sentence and see how it sounds. observe:

i like it when friends come over to visit dom and i/ me.
i like it when friends come over to visit i.
i like it when friends come over to visit me.

this is what they're saying in the infographic, but it's not abundantly clear. at least, to me it isn't. [note: that was actually a sentence fragment.]

i do strongly believe that it's important to know this kind of stuff [theses kinds of things?] and not to rely exclusively on spelling or grammar checks. neither of those tools is capable of discerning the subtleties of your writing and can inadvertently end up giving you terrible advice. for instance, there is nothing grammatically wrong with the following sentence:

the sun shone from his behind.

however, the above sentence does not mean "the sun shone from behind him".

likewise, there is nothing grammatically wrong with saying:

let's eat kids.

no grammar check will alert you that you're doing something wrong by writing that sentence. the police, however, may have something to say to you unless you protect yourself with a comma:

let's eat, kids.

hope that makes the consequences of trusting in your grammar check adequately clear.

i'm far from perfect and on this blog, i'm farther from perfect than usual. i don't always check things before i post them and it bugs me when i find unforgivably stupid mistakes, which i do, more often than i'd like to admit. sometimes, of course, i employ grammatical mistakes and spelling mistakes for effect [witness the title of this post], but i like to think that i come off as intelligent enough most of the time that you all know i'm joking. if i'm wrong about that, perhaps you could keep it to yourself, as it's one of the central threads of my self-image.

to all of you fellow writers out there: english is kind of a bastard, but i do think it's worth trying to improve, even if you [like me] are never going to get it completely right. either that, or we should all just write in lolspeak from now on.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …