NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't mean to sound like a grammar Nazi, but the spelling and sentence structure on NS can be abominable. Here are some basic (and quick) ways to drastically improve your RPs:

1. Single word clarifications
its= possessive. Its tailfin was huge.
it's= it is. It is a huge tailfin.

your= possessive. Your hair looks ridiculous
you’re= you are. You are an idiot. (It really makes my day when an NS user insults another with “your an idiot.”

bare= to leave something exposed. I made the dog bare its teeth when I stepped on its tail.
bear= a large animal native to mountainous areas, Alaska, and the North Pole, or a verb dealing with burdens. This elephant on my back is too heavy to bear.

capital= the city where the government sits. The capital of Djibouti is Djibouti City.
capitol= the BUILDING where the government sits. The capitol building is located downtown.

lead= a metal with symbol Pb on the periodic table, or the present tense of “led”. Right now, I lead the race, but my opponents are gaining quickly.
Led= Past tense of “lead”. I led the race halfway through, but I finished third.

Threw= to physically propel an object. I threw the baseball to my friend.
Through= to pass between or in one side and out the other. Instead of using the door, the Incredible Hulk opted to walk through the wall.

Loose= not tight, to release. The chains were too loose. My artillery was loosed on the city.
Lose= to not win. If you take on a five billion population country in your first week on NS, odds are you’re going to lose.

Noone= Old English for Noon. The cavalry charges at noone!
No one= Not a soul present. After I farted, there was no one left in the room.

Moral= to be a good person. The pastor is a moral person.
Morale= spirit. The morale of the troops was low after the terrific beating in the battle.

Peace= a lack of strife. Hopefully, when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq there will be peace.
Piece= a chunk of something. Give me a piece of your pizza!

Their= possessive. Their tails twitched in the moonlight
They’re= they are. They’re incredible swimmers.
There= place. My pants must be over there.

2. Sentence structure.
This should be a short section, but I decided to make it longer because I like to make my sentences ramble on, since that way I don’t have to use periods, as I’m afraid of dots.

Does something seem wrong with this? If you answered “yes”, you win a gold star. A good rule of thumb is to restrain your sentences to two clauses. No, not the fat man in a red suit that gives out crap at Christmas, but a grouping of words. There are five clauses in the example.

This should be a short section (1), but I decided to make it longer (2) because I like to make my sentences ramble on (3), since I don’t have to use periods (4), as I’m afraid of dots (5).

The words not underlined are conjunctions. Note the lack of a comma with “because”. Improved, the section looks like this:

This should be a short section. I decided to make it longer because I like to make my sentences ramble. I don’t have to use periods; I’m afraid of dots.

Note the substitution of a semi-colon for a conjunction and a comma. It adds a bit of variety to your writing.

3. Punctuation
Use it! Variety of :”;?., adds depth!

4. Conjunctions
Use them! Comma splices = not cool. Terry went to school, then went to class. NO!!! Terry went to school and then to class.
No comma. Why? “then to class” could not stand as a sentence by itself. If it were “he went to class”, you would have to use a comma.

5. No abbreviations/IM speak in IC
Please, when in context, do not use abbreviations except for military hardware. “n00kes”, “lol”, and “n00b” don’t cut it IC.


This is a rapid overview of many basic concepts. These are for IC posts or debates where you don’t want to sound like an idiot. If you have any additions, I will happily make them and credit you.

Would work better in II.

LOL

It strikes me as rather obnoxious to try to dictate to an entire forum how one thinks they should type -- especially since this is an international forum and not everyone's first language is English.

Your previous title is rather trollish, as well as being unclear. I can assume that what you meant that it was a guide for idiots, so it should have been the "Idiots' Guide to English", rather than the possessive and singular "Idiot's Guide to English." We'll avoid the whole ironic mess by renaming this the Grammarian's Guide to English.

The one that frustrates me the most is the use of apostrophe to pluralize a word, e.g.:

'One rabbit, two bird's, three peach's, four canary's, etc.'

The thing that gets me is: how many times each day do these people read something properly pluralized? Every fifteen seconds or so. The effort to learn correct punctuation is sub-minimal. Look down. Does the bag say "potato chip's?" No, it says "chips." Does the sign say "orange's, half price?" No, it says "oranges." I dunno, that one just gets to me.

It strikes me as rather obnoxious to try to dictate to an entire forum how one thinks they should type -- especially since this is an international forum and not everyone's first language is English.

Knowledge is power! :) I'm sure some ESL folks here will appreciate the effort.

I can assume that what you meant that it was a guide for idiots, so it should have been the "Idiots' Guide to English", rather than the possessive and singular "Idiot's Guide to English."
Ha!

LOL

It strikes me as rather obnoxious to try to dictate to an entire forum how one thinks they should type -- especially since this is an international forum and not everyone's first language is English.

Your previous title is rather trollish, as well as being unclear. I can assume that what you meant that it was a guide for idiots, so it should have been the "Idiots' Guide to English", rather than the possessive and singular "Idiot's Guide to English." We'll avoid the whole ironic mess by renaming this the Grammarian's Guide to English.

Hehe, come on, Katganistan. First of all, he can say the "Idiot's Guide to English," or the "Idiots' Guide to English," whichever way he wants, because it can be a guide for anyone who is an idiot on NS, or it can be a guide for all idiots on NS. All of you that thought Katganistan "owned" him, so to speak, would do well to understand that. Second of all, it's somewhat ironic that you pointed that out, and then renamed this thread "Grammarian's Guide to English," instead of "Grammarians' Guide to English."

The one that frustrates me the most is the use of apostrophe to pluralize a word, e.g.:

'One rabbit, two bird's, three peach's, four canary's, etc.'

The thing that gets me is: how many times each day do these people read something properly pluralized? Every fifteen seconds or so. The effort to learn correct punctuation is sub-minimal. Look down. Does the bag say "potato chip's?" No, it says "chips." Does the sign say "orange's, half price?" No, it says "oranges." I dunno, that one just gets to me.


I don't know what nation's English you are refering to, but in american english a -'s is posessive (signifying that the modified word is in posession of something, ie Tom's bag, or See these orange's spots).
While words ending in -s are pluralised (is "Potato Chips" and "Oranges").

Your previous title is rather trollish, as well as being unclear. I can assume that what you meant that it was a guide for idiots, so it should have been the "Idiots' Guide to English", rather than the possessive and singular "Idiot's Guide to English." We'll avoid the whole ironic mess by renaming this the Grammarian's Guide to English.

I think he was spoofing the popular book series, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to _____." The series uses the singular.

There have been other threads on this before.

The last one I saw lasted for three pages before it died.

I don't know what nation's English you are refering to, but in american english a -'s is posessive (signifying that the modified word is in posession of something, ie Tom's bag, or See these orange's spots).
While words ending in -s are pluralised (is "Potato Chips" and "Oranges").

I know. I'm talking about pluralization, not possession. "Tom's shoe" means one Tom, one shoe. Some people don't seem to understand this, and pluralize words with an apostrophe. If you haven't experienced this, you're lucky. :)

LOL

It strikes me as rather obnoxious to try to dictate to an entire forum how one thinks they should type -- especially since this is an international forum and not everyone's first language is English.

Your previous title is rather trollish, as well as being unclear. I can assume that what you meant that it was a guide for idiots, so it should have been the "Idiots' Guide to English", rather than the possessive and singular "Idiot's Guide to English." We'll avoid the whole ironic mess by renaming this the Grammarian's Guide to English.

I wouldn't call it "trollish", since there's an entire line of books out with that title. This is an international forum, but as previously posted, "knowledge is power." Proper English at least provides the illusion of intelligence. I don't care how well you formulate your ideas, if proper english isn't utilized you come across as less than intelligent. I like your title better anyway.

I know. I'm talking about pluralization, not possession. "Tom's shoe" means one Tom, one shoe. Some people don't seem to understand this, and pluralize words with an apostrophe. If you haven't experienced this, you're lucky. :)

I've either never experienced it, or toned it out. I don't know which.

The one that frustrates me the most is the use of apostrophe to pluralize a word, e.g.:

'One rabbit, two bird's, three peach's, four canary's, etc.'

The thing that gets me is: how many times each day do these people read something properly pluralized? Every fifteen seconds or so. The effort to learn correct punctuation is sub-minimal. Look down. Does the bag say "potato chip's?" No, it says "chips." Does the sign say "orange's, half price?" No, it says "oranges." I dunno, that one just gets to me.

I think you would quite enjoy Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Lynne Truss discusses many things that drive our inner grammarians crazy, and has an entire section devoted to the abuse of the apostrophe. :)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592400876/qid=1118103217/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-5477514-2164954?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Second of all, it's somewhat ironic that you pointed that out, and then renamed this thread "Grammarian's Guide to English," instead of "Grammarians' Guide to English."

Not at all ironic: it is his or her guide; therefore he or she is a Grammarian. Therefore the singular possessive is correct.

Next?

I think you would quite enjoy Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Lynne Truss discusses many things that drive our inner grammarians crazy, and has an entire section devoted to the abuse of the apostrophe. :)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592400876/qid=1118103217/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-5477514-2164954?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It's Eats, Shoots and Leaves. The period doesn't get underlined. Also, I would like it if you would acknowledge the fact that you were incorrect about the former title, for the sake of the intelligence of our forum participants.

Not at all ironic: it is his or her guide; therefore he or she is a Grammarian. Therefore the singular possessive is correct.

Next?

LOL! I love how you completely missed what I was saying, and then acted like you schooled me. I was referring to the fact that you argued that it could not be "his or her guide," and therefore he or she is an idiot, thus it's the "Idiot's Guide." Way to read.

Not at all ironic: it is his or her guide; therefore he or she is a Grammarian. Therefore the singular possessive is correct.

Next?Being a bit of a spelling freak myself, i have to say that is absolutely.... correct :D

Being a bit of a spelling freak myself, i have to say that is absolutely.... correct :D

Okay, first of all, you're obviously not a grammar freak.

"Being a bit of a spelling freak, myself, I have to say that that or what you said is absolutely correct or absolutely... correct."

Second of all, I was not saying that what he said was incorrect, I was saying that what he said clashed with that which he corrected in the original title of this thread, and was therefore ironic.

Rogue Newbies, I cannot help but notice that you edited your post in which you told me the title of the book I had quoted was Eats Shoots and Leaves.

I started to read "Eats shoots and leaves" and it just made me angry. I've studied linguistics as part of my degree, and one of the first things you are told is that there is no such thing as 'correct' or 'incorrect' language usage: only standard and non-standard. Language, especially written language, is merely a tool for communication, not some sacred, unchangable law. Languages develop and improve by people using them, and adapting them to their own needs. Useless rules are ignored over time and disappear. When you get stuck preaching rules to language users who don't care about them, and who don't need them to communicate their ideas, languages die. That's partly why nobody speaks Latin anymore.

The only relevant rule of a language, especially in an informal setting like an internet forum, is that as long as the meaning is clear, it's OK.

Rogue Newbies, I cannot help but notice that you edited your post in which you told me the title of the book I had quoted was Eats Shoots and Leaves.

Yeah, that's because I accidently dropped a comma. What's your point? I caught it first, unlike the things I've corrected you on. :p

It's Eats, Shoots and Leaves. The period doesn't get underlined. Also, I would like it if you would acknowledge the fact that you were incorrect about the former title, for the sake of the intelligence of our forum participants.
LOL! I love how you completely missed what I was saying, and then acted like you schooled me. I was referring to the fact that you argued that it could not be "his or her guide," and therefore he or she is an idiot, thus it's the "Idiot's Guide." Way to read.
Yeah, that's because I accidently dropped a comma. What's your point? I caught it first, unlike the things I've corrected you on. :p
Rogue Newbie: You have a rapidly growing history of trying to snipe at people without crossing the line (or, this is what it seems like you're doing). While your conduct is not yet worthy of official action, you are headed towards a forumban.

The old adage "if you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all" would serve you well, here.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Rogue Newbie: You have a rapidly growing history of trying to snipe at people without crossing the line (or, this is what it seems like you're doing). While your conduct is not yet worthy of official action, you are headed towards a forumban.

The old adage "if you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all" would serve you well, here.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Whoa, now, Cog. First of all, Katganistan was snidely making fun of Bellania...

I can assume that what you meant that it was a guide for idiots, so it should have been the "Idiots' Guide to English", rather than the possessive and singular "Idiot's Guide to English." We'll avoid the whole ironic mess by renaming this the Grammarian's Guide to English.

Then, when I corrected him, he responded to me snidely...

Not at all ironic: it is his or her guide; therefore he or she is a Grammarian. Therefore the singular possessive is correct.

Next?

Thus, I corrected him again, at which point he made some petty reference to something that I had corrected long before he made mention of it...

Rogue Newbies, I cannot help but notice that you edited your post in which you told me the title of the book I had quoted was Eats Shoots and Leaves.

So I point out said comment's irrelevancy.

I was just sticking up for the people he was mocking, especially since he was mocking them unjustly.

And now I'm getting warned for pushing my luck? What, just because Katganistan is a moderator, he's allowed to make obnoxious, rude comments? And then when I respond to them in a similarly obnoxious and rude manner to correct him, I'm coming close to breaking the rules? I'm sorry, but that makes very little sense.

I started to read "Eats shoots and leaves" and it just made me angry. I've studied linguistics as part of my degree, and one of the first things you are told is that there is no such thing as 'correct' or 'incorrect' language usage: only standard and non-standard. Language, especially written language, is merely a tool for communication, not some sacred, unchangable law. Languages develop and improve by people using them, and adapting them to their own needs. Useless rules are ignored over time and disappear. When you get stuck preaching rules to language users who don't care about them, and who don't need them to communicate their ideas, languages die. That's partly why nobody speaks Latin anymore.

The only relevant rule of a language, especially in an informal setting like an internet forum, is that as long as the meaning is clear, it's OK.


You have no idea how many times I have tried to make this point unsuccessfully on this forum and elsewhere. Although, I have never made the point so eloquently as I usually ramble on incoherently for several paragraphs and get nothing but opposition. anyhoo - I *heart j00!

For those honestly confused:

1)It is a guide written by Bellania. Therefore it is Bellania's Guide.

2) Bellania is a Grammarian. Therefore we can call it The Grammarian's Guide.

Are you kidding? Seriously, you're just screwing with me, now. You removed my quotes? My quotes were PG-13; I censored them specifically for that purpose. TV-14 is the television communication's equivalent of PG-13, correct? Correct... they are both defined as, "Parental Guidance Strongly Suggested." Now, when an R-rated movie that is rated as such for language content and violence is shown on TV, and they bleep out the cuss words and cut out the excessive violence, what rating does it get? I'll give you a hint: it starts with a "T" and ends with a "-14." Thus my quotes were perfectly suitable for a PG-13 audience, according to official definitions and rating systems. Besides, nobody is going to know what the asterisks stand for unless they have been exposed to R-rated content on a semi-regular basis, anyway, so what does it really matter?

One of my pet hates is the misuse of phase/faze - usually using the former when the latter is appropriate.

The sentence 'His behavious didn't faze her; she knew it was just a phase he was going through' uses the words correctly.

I have a punctuation question: in the previous paragraph, should the word 'his' be capitalised?

The only relevant rule of a language, especially in an informal setting like an internet forum, is that as long as the meaning is clear, it's OK.

That's just it, though. The meaning is not clear when improper grammar is employed. Clarity of meaning is the reason for grammatical rules and punctuation, and it shows disrespect for one's reader when one's sentences are difficult to understand. Language is not difficult to master with the tiniest bit of effort, we hear it and read it every day (I refer here to native speakers).

Rogue Newbies, this is the deal:


Katganistan is a "she", not a "he".
I know that according to standard American English my comma and period in the previous post belong inside the quotes, but I'm going by British/Geek English rules here to eliminate ambiguity.
All of Katganistan's grammatical corrections have, in fact, been correct. Yours have been a bit more hit and miss.
All of the previous points are pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand.
While the original topic was not inappropriate, it was grammatically incorrect. I can understand Katganistan's correction (she is a bit of a grammarian herself), but have explained that the topic is fine.
Bellania, the topic starter, seems to have taken the critique in stride and in the spirit in which it was given. You should too.
You do seem quick to snipe at other people. This is a formal warning to watch it. I have no doubts that you can be a constructive user on our forums, but if you don't act more civilly, I will gladly give you a week to consider proper forum etiquette by banning you for that length of time.

Being a teacher of English as a foreign language, (TEFL/TESOL for short), I find the type of self serving "I know my grammar better than you do" that is being displayed here a complete waste of time. If the native speakers wish to battle it out for who can most 'correctly' define the use of the semi colon, or the correct use of accents in importing foreign words, they are welcome to do so. But please do not do it with an attitude that implies that anyone who really can not be bothered with these picky details is stupid. We are not stupid, we just have better things to think about - like content.

As an aside, English does not have a fully defined grammar. There is a wide range of acceptable usage in most aspects of the language, so there is no 'correct' usage anyway.

I agree with alien born.

That said, "off of" and "oftentimes" both bug the hell out of me. I don't complain about it though.