Little editing/grammar mistakes that drive you up the wall

[skullturf]

I can't think of anything specific that really bothers me, but I know my mother freaks out when she hears people using the word 'less' to talk about a reduction in the number of some discrete entities. It should always be 'fewer' unless the subject quantity is continuous.

I'm aware of that rule, but the existence of the rule bugs me.

We use the word "more" for discrete quantities and for continuous quantities. More cows, more milk.

"Less milk" is fine. I probably wouldn't say or write "less cows" in formal contexts; I know that it sounds wrong to many people, and I'll admit that it sounds slightly "off" to me as well.

But since we use "more" for both discrete and continuous quantities, it's not as though logic "demands" that we maintain the "less"/"fewer" distinction. There's no inherent reason that "less" and "fewer" have to be two separate words; I can't see how it isn't anything more than a historical accident.

[Anglish]

Thank you, especially gmalivuk, for that explanation. I suspected that was the case. I suppose it bothers me for the same reason as does ending a sentence with a preposition; that is, it's not necessarily incorrect, it's a rule which I prefer. I think it just makes more sense and makes things clearer, and that it seems odd to end a sentence with a joining-word, however, I'm not sure how to explain why this is in great detail. Two examples of why I prefer "which/whom" over "that" and to not end sentences with prepositions are: "To whom is this going?" as opposed to, "Who is this going to?", or; "There's something about which I need to talk to you." as opposed to, "There's something that I need to talk to you about."

[goofy]

I can't think of anything specific that really bothers me, but I know my mother freaks out when she hears people using the word 'less' to talk about a reduction in the number of some discrete entities. It should always be 'fewer' unless the subject quantity is continuous.

I'm aware of that rule, but the existence of the rule bugs me.

The rule doesn't exist. We've been using less with count nouns for a thousand years. Here is the entry from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage..

[Derek]

"There's something about which I need to talk to you." as opposed to, "There's something that I need to talk to you about."

I just have to butt in and say that the second version sounds much better to me. The first sounds very stilted.

[Makri]

As a non-native speaker of a language that really grammatically does not allow prepositions at the end of the sentence the way English has them, I, too, have to say that the relative clause with "that" and a final preposition often sounds more normal, and it's my impression that they're easier to process. (Surely someone has tested that experimentally, but I don't know the results.)

[eSOANEM]

I can't think of anything specific that really bothers me, but I know my mother freaks out when she hears people using the word 'less' to talk about a reduction in the number of some discrete entities. It should always be 'fewer' unless the subject quantity is continuous.

I'm aware of that rule, but the existence of the rule bugs me.

We use the word "more" for discrete quantities and for continuous quantities. More cows, more milk.

"Less milk" is fine. I probably wouldn't say or write "less cows" in formal contexts; I know that it sounds wrong to many people, and I'll admit that it sounds slightly "off" to me as well.

But since we use "more" for both discrete and continuous quantities, it's not as though logic "demands" that we maintain the "less"/"fewer" distinction. There's no inherent reason that "less" and "fewer" have to be two separate words; I can't see how it isn't anything more than a historical accident.

I agree that the "rule" is ridiculous and completely unnecessary (and has been violated throughout history so cannot meaningfully be said to exist) however, for some reason (I think that it really bugs my mum), it still really bugs me.

I think it just makes more sense and makes things clearer, and that it seems odd to end a sentence with a joining-word,

What's your opinion on phrasal verbs such as "to wake up", "to shut up" etc.? Would you be ok ending a sentence with them and if not, how would construct the sentence "John woke up"?

"There's something about which I need to talk to you." as opposed to, "There's something that I need to talk to you about."

I just have to butt in and say that the second version sounds much better to me. The first sounds very stilted.

Likewise.

[Anglish]

I think it just makes more sense and makes things clearer, and that it seems odd to end a sentence with a joining-word,

What's your opinion on phrasal verbs such as "to wake up", "to shut up" etc.? Would you be ok ending a sentence with them and if not, how would construct the sentence "John woke up"?

That's a good question. There's not much which can be done in the case of some idioms and phrasal verbs. In the case of, "to wake up", the obvious alternate is "to awake". In the case of "to shut up", depending on the context it could alternatively be, "Shut your mouth.", or, "I shut my mouth." In writing I might make a conscious effort to avoid such phrasal verbs, though, orally I would just speak naturally with whatever idiom or phrasal verb suits the context.

In regards to Derek's statement, "I just have to butt in and say that the second version sounds much better to me. The first sounds very stilted." and your agreement, I agree that at first it was somewhat jarring for me to accept and learn this style, however, it now feels so much more natural to me than the alternative; what I find odd is when I hear or read the alternative.

[gmalivuk]

In writing I might make a conscious effort to avoid such phrasal verbs

Why? Those aren't even prepositions any more, when they're part of a phrasal verb.

[Anglish]

In writing I might make a conscious effort to avoid such phrasal verbs

Why? Those aren't even prepositions any more, when they're part of a phrasal verb.

It's linguistically arbitrary, I know, but it appears to be a preposition, so it's simply for aesthetic reasons.

[Monika]

But you know that idiotic "rule" was written down by the same morons who told English-speaking people they must not split infintives? And both for the same reason, too - because this is not done (cannot be done) in Latin, the language considered the coolest during that past time.

[Anonymously Famous]

"There's something about which I need to talk to you." as opposed to, "There's something that I need to talk to you about."

In this case, if you want to avoid a preposition at the end and not sound "off," you could just choose to use a different verb: "There's something that I need to discuss with you."

[Anglish]

But you know that idiotic "rule" was written down by the same morons who told English-speaking people they must not split infintives? And both for the same reason, too - because this is not done (cannot be done) in Latin, the language considered the coolest during that past time.

Yes I'm aware. I don't mean to be condescending because I know it's not any more correct. It's just a style I prefer and wanted to get some responses to see whether people agree with it or just find it obnoxious.

[caisara]

.

[gmalivuk]

No, "which" is acceptable in both cases.

[eSOANEM]

Little editing/grammar mistakes that drive you up the wall

My brain always tries to correct "that" in the preceding context to "which", so that it would read as, "Little editing/grammar mistakes which drive you up the wall." Is this in any way more correct, less correct, or are both equally acceptable?

"Commas, which cut out the fat, go with 'which,' but never with 'that.'" (Patricia T. O'Connor, Woe Is I)

You should use "which" if you can drop a clause and understand the point of a sentence. However, you should use "that" if the clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence. So it was correct with "that."

The title of her book (assuming it is not tongue in cheek) shows you that this woman is not to be taken seriously on any matter of grammar.

[caisara]

.

[eSOANEM]

that being grammatically correct in that instance is silly.

Being grammatically correct is never silly. What is silly is insisting that "woe is I" is more correct than "woe is me" (whih is idiomatic anyway), people who object to "me" being used with "to be" are, as is so often case, simply copying a rule from latin which doesn't apply (because English pronouns have oblique forms not accusative ones). That said, I was being deliberately facetious.

[Lazar]

To be clear though, "woe is me" is correct even if we prohibit complementary "me", because the "me" here not a complement, but rather an idiomatic dative usage. This can be seen in the German equivalent "Weh ist mir" (known to many of us in its Yiddish form, "oy, vey iz mir").

[skullturf]

One possible opinion, partly echoing remarks given above, would be something like:

"Woe is I" is technically correct, but we should probably say "Woe is me", because that sounds more natural to most speakers.

However, if "Woe is me" sounds more natural to most speakers, that very fact is a big part of an argument that in fact, "woe is me" is more correct!

The idea that something can be "technically correct", even if it strikes a clear majority of speakers as unnatural, is an idea to be regarded with suspicion.

[eSOANEM]

The idea that something can be "technically correct", even if it strikes a clear majority of speakers as unnatural, is an idea to be regarded with suspicion.

Exactly, and "woe is I" certainly seems not only unnatural to me, but ungrammatical as it (at least appears to) contain a predicative "I".

[Lazar]

"Woe is I" is technically correct,

No it's not. As I explained in the previous post, it's a dative usage meaning "woe is [unto] me". "Woe is I" would be ungrammatical even to the strictest prescriptivist.

[skullturf]

"Woe is I" is technically correct,

No it's not. As I explained in the previous post, it's a dative usage meaning "woe is [unto] me". "Woe is I" would be ungrammatical even to the strictest prescriptivist.

Personally, I agree. I think we're on the same page here. See the line I wrote just before what you quoted.

[Aiwendil]

No, I don't think you are on the same page. Lazar is saying that 'Woe is I' is incorrect not (merely) because it contradicts popular usage but because the 'me' is not a predicate nominative but a dative. So even if one insists on such things as 'It is I' or 'What would you do if you were I?' one could not (reasonably) insist on 'Woe is I'. Thus, it is not technically correct, in any sense.

[goofy]

To be clear though, "woe is me" is correct even if we prohibit complementary "me", because the "me" here not a complement, but rather an idiomatic dative usage.

That's what it is etymologically, but is that what it is synchronically? Are there any other similar and productive dative usages? I think the "me" in "woe is me" has been reinterpreted as a straightforward accusative.

[Lazar]

That's what it is etymologically, but is that what it is synchronically? Are there any other similar and productive dative usages? I think the "me" in "woe is me" has been reinterpreted as a straightforward accusative.

I think the idiom is pretty well fossilized, and the formula that produced it extinct, so yeah, most people probably aren't even aware of its being a dative.

[PM 2Ring]

I think the idiom is pretty well fossilized, and the formula that produced it extinct, so yeah, most people probably aren't even aware of its being a dative.

Be that as it may, I can't see how anyone would conceive of the pronoun in this utterance as being nominative, so what's the rationalization for using "I" here? Is it just a matter of drawing a parallel between this construction and those constructions despised by hard-core prescriptivist grammar teachers where there is nominative / accusative confusion?

[Jimmy_kaine]

YOUR
YOU'RE

THEIR
THERE
THEY'RE

TOO
TO
TWO

TO NO END. THIS CRAP FOLLOWS ME EVERYWHERE.

[gmalivuk]

Which crap? Those words being different, or other people using the wrong one, or what?

[Grop]

Maybe people writing all caps?

[goofy]

That's what it is etymologically, but is that what it is synchronically? Are there any other similar and productive dative usages? I think the "me" in "woe is me" has been reinterpreted as a straightforward accusative.

I think the idiom is pretty well fossilized, and the formula that produced it extinct, so yeah, most people probably aren't even aware of its being a dative.

My point is I don't think it is a dative any more.

[eSOANEM]

That's what it is etymologically, but is that what it is synchronically? Are there any other similar and productive dative usages? I think the "me" in "woe is me" has been reinterpreted as a straightforward accusative.

I think the idiom is pretty well fossilized, and the formula that produced it extinct, so yeah, most people probably aren't even aware of its being a dative.

My point is I don't think it is a dative any more.

I'd argue that the entire phrase was ungrammatical under current grammar and would be best treated as a single lexeme.

[Darryl]

I like "I could care less" as a form of understatement similar to "I'm not a huge fan" meaning "I don't like that at all."

How do you figure it's an understatement? Its intended meaning is the exact opposite of its literal meaning. It's not an understatement, it's a lie. By saying you could care less, you're saying that you do in fact care at least a little bit, so there's room to be able to care less about it. If you do not care at all, then you couldn't care less. It's impossible to be at a level of caring below "not caring at all", so you couldn't care less.

But whatever, carry on butchering this wonderful language of ours. I could care less.

Because there's certainly not this thing called sarcasm, which relies on saying the opposite of what you mean. And there's absolutely no chance that "I could care less" is an example of this alleged mode of communication.

(Note: The above was sarcastic not to be rude, but to provide an example of sarcasm, because I felt it brought the point of the phrase being a sarcastic one across better.)

[gmalivuk]

And there's absolutely no chance that "I could care less" is an example of this alleged mode of communication.

To be fair, while I definitely find myself saying "I could care less" purely out of spite for the people who whine about it, it isn't pronounced the way we'd expect for actual sarcasm. It is also, I think, too understated and uncertain to be sarcastic. (Compare it to your own post, where it was precisely the use of words like "certainly" and "absolutely" and the bolding emphasis of "no" that made the sarcasm clear.)

Though your point is still a good one against that particularly shitty argument against "I could care less", wherein the arguers conveniently forget the hundreds or thousands of sentences they themselves have probably uttered in their lives, where the intended meaning is explicitly designed to be the opposite of the explicit logical meaning of the words they used.

[Darryl]

And there's absolutely no chance that "I could care less" is an example of this alleged mode of communication.

To be fair, while I definitely find myself saying "I could care less" purely out of spite for the people who whine about it, it isn't pronounced the way we'd expect for actual sarcasm. It is also, I think, too understated and uncertain to be sarcastic. (Compare it to your own post, where it was precisely the use of words like "certainly" and "absolutely" and the bolding emphasis of "no" that made the sarcasm clear.)

Though your point is still a good one against that particularly shitty argument against "I could care less", wherein the arguers conveniently forget the hundreds or thousands of sentences they themselves have probably uttered in their lives, where the intended meaning is explicitly designed to be the opposite of the explicit logical meaning of the words they used.

Yeah, when I do use it, it's usually "I could really care less", since the use of the intensifying "really" aids the sarcasm. And of course, I love sarcasm. It's my family's native language (you should see some of the stuff I can say to my own father because of how our family works).

ETA: Also, I was going all out on the emphasis on the sarcasm due to this being text rather than speech, and thus harder to decode sarcasm without that aid.

[Judah]

"There's something about which I need to talk to you." as opposed to, "There's something that I need to talk to you about."

I just have to butt in and say that the second version sounds much better to me. The first sounds very stilted.

Allow me to point out that this is a false dichotomy. Both versions can be avoided if one follows that other recommendation of the stylists: "Avoid the passive voice!"

"I need to talk to you about something" sounds perfectly natural and is more direct than either of the above, to boot (notice that the other versions need to refer to the "something" twice [as "something" and then as "that"/"which"] in the course of one short sentence).

[Monika]

"There's something about which I need to talk to you." as opposed to, "There's something that I need to talk to you about."

Allow me to point out that this is a false dichotomy. Both versions can be avoided if one follows that other recommendation of the stylists: "Avoid the passive voice!"

There is no passive voice in the sentence. You know, passive voice, this mode that is formed with a form of to be + the past participle in English?

[Judah]

And there's absolutely no chance that "I could care less" is an example of this alleged mode of communication.

To be fair, while I definitely find myself saying "I could care less" purely out of spite for the people who whine about it, it isn't pronounced the way we'd expect for actual sarcasm. It is also, I think, too understated and uncertain to be sarcastic. (Compare it to your own post, where it was precisely the use of words like "certainly" and "absolutely" and the bolding emphasis of "no" that made the sarcasm clear.)

I agree with both of these points--both the (typical) inflection and the wording of "I could care less" point against its being a case of sarcasm--which is why I don't understand why your second paragraph calls the argument against it "shitty". Seems to me that it's a pretty good argument against it, and it's the apologists whose argument is rather weak.

The most I'd be willing to concede is that perhaps the phrase descends from something similar but more clearly intended as sarcasm. Once something's become an idiom, though, both origins and logic become largely irrelevant.

[Judah]

"There's something about which I need to talk to you." as opposed to, "There's something that I need to talk to you about."

Allow me to point out that this is a false dichotomy. Both versions can be avoided if one follows that other recommendation of the stylists: "Avoid the passive voice!"

There is no passive voice in the sentence. You know, passive voice, this mode that is formed with a form of to be + the past participle in English?

I'm sorry if my terminology was incorrect, and I'll be happy to be informed about the proper way to refer to sentences like these. The substance of what I was trying to say stands, though: Wikipedia's definition of "passive voice", e.g., is "a grammatical construction (a "voice") in which the subject of a sentence or clause denotes the recipient of the action (the patient) rather than the performer (the agent)."

In the sentence I was referring to, the agent is "I", and "something" is one of the things that he's acting on, yet the sentence is casting "something" as the subject. Even if I was wrong to apply the term "passive voice" to this case, in essence it's an example of the same sort of the thing. The people who proscribe passive voice would surely proscribe sentences like these as well.

[goofy]

"There's something that I need to talk to you about."

I'm sorry if my terminology was incorrect, and I'll be happy to be informed about the proper way to refer to sentences like these. The substance of what I was trying to say stands, though: Wikipedia's definition of "passive voice", e.g., is "a grammatical construction (a "voice") in which the subject of a sentence or clause denotes the recipient of the action (the patient) rather than the performer (the agent)."

In the sentence I was referring to, the agent is "I", and "something" is one of the things that he's acting on, yet the sentence is casting "something" as the subject. Even if I was wrong to apply the term "passive voice" to this case, in essence it's an example of the same sort of the thing. The people who proscribe passive voice would surely proscribe sentences like these as well.

But something isn't the subject. The subject is there. And the subject of the embedded clause is I. Although you might be right that the people who proscribe the passive might proscribe this sentence as well, because so many people who proscribe the passive don't actually understand what it is.

[gmalivuk]

I don't understand why your second paragraph calls the argument against it "shitty". Seems to me that it's a pretty good argument against it

It's a shitty argument because "that literally means the opposite of the intended meaning" is overbroad. It would also deem all examples of true sarcasm incorrect. So, at the very least, whiners should specify that it's a nonsarcastic expression whose literal meaning is the opposite of its intended meaning.