NationStates Jolt Archive

I have this thing I need proof read, and I know some of you are better at the clarity vs. grammar rules than I am. Is anyone here willing to proof something important for me? I could email it to you.

Also, which is more important proper grammar or clarity?

I know for a fact that there are some really old rules, that are proper but when used it makes a sentence awkward because we don't talk like that any more.


Please, excuse my spelling/grammar mistakes in this post.

Depends on what audience you're writing for.

For instance, if I were writing for an English professor, I would have said "Depends on for which audience you're writing" in order to avoid ending the sentence with a preposition. But in this case you are CLEARLY not worth the effort!

Uhh yeah k.

Oh ps you can email me if you want. I'm pretty much a grammarian, even though I don't act like it on forums. e.dansak@gmail.com

Proper grammar is always warrented. It provides clarity. If people can't understand proper grammar they probably aren't worth your formal letter or paper. This does not mean I use perfect grammar all the time but you should respect and understand it when you see it. Of course, we should all strive to use proper grammar in everyday speech and writing as well. There is no excuse for intentional ignorance; only mistakes. A few of which I have probably made in this post.

as said before, know your audience. If the sentences are atleast somewhat grammatically correct, then there shouldn't be a problem unless it is someone who is excessively anal. If you want, I can proof read it, but I preface that offer with a warning that it might look like I slit my wrist over the page. Red ink is pretty :)

TG me if you still need a proofreader, and I'll give you my email address. I'm a pro proofreader. I'm happy to do it -- depending on how long it is, of course.

My philosophy: clarity is most important in English, and good grammar usually = clarity, and vice versa. :)

Clarity is most important in English, and good grammar usually = clarity, and vice versa. :)
^^ :)

^^ :)
I've had massive arguments with people that involved them yelling at me, "Why did you take out that comma? The Chicago Times style manual says you have to have a comma in front of a clause starting with 'which,'" to which I retort, "You already have 13 commas in that sentence, Faulkner. I took one out to relieve the crowding." ;)

I've had massive arguments with people that involved them yelling at me, "Why did you take out that comma? The Chicago Times style manual says you have to have a comma in front of a clause starting with "which," to which I retort, "You already have 13 commas in that sentence, Faulkner. I took one out to relieve the crowding." ;)

You only truly gain a genuine apreciation of the elegance and beauty of English gramar when you have to read, and try and translate the work of José Saramago. The only modern writer, that I am aware of, who manages to write five pages in a single sentence! :eek:

How can u choose one over the other? Do both... cant go wrong then

You only truly gain a genuine apreciation of the elegance and beauty of English gramar when you have to read, and try and translate the work of José Saramago. The only modern writer, that I am aware of, who manages to write five pages in a single sentence! :eek:
Imagine a conversation between him and Faulkner.

seventeen hours later, they finish saying "hello"

Unless a writer is aiming for some effect by misusing grammar, clarity can only be maximized when grammar is perfect.

Grammatical esoterica only serves to sharpen and clarify expression.

Grammatical errors distract readers, which detracts from clarity of expression.

I have this thing I need proof read, and I know some of you are better at the clarity vs. grammar rules than I am. Is anyone here willing to proof something important for me? I could email it to you.

Also, which is more important proper grammar or clarity?

I know for a fact that there are some really old rules, that are proper but when used it makes a sentence awkward because we don't talk like that any more.


Please, excuse my spelling/grammar mistakes in this post.


If a sentance is made unclear by being made grammatical, it should be re-written.

Imagine a conversation between him and Faulkner.

seventeen hours later, they finish saying "hello"
:D They'd be kept out of trouble at any rate.

If a sentance is made unclear by being made grammatical, it should be re-written.
good to know.

It's been double proofread.

Sarkhaan you were most helpful, thanks. ;)

Depends on what audience you're writing for.

For instance, if I were writing for an English professor, I would have said "Depends on for which audience you're writing" in order to avoid ending the sentence with a preposition.

I would go with "Depends on the audience for whom you are writing"

But that's just me :)

I would go with "Depends on the audience for whom you are writing"

But that's just me :)


That's debatable.

Does 'audience' call for 'whom' or for 'which...'

That's debatable.

Does 'audience' call for 'whom' or for 'which...'

It calls for which, I would imagine.

It calls for which, I would imagine.


I tend to agree.

That's debatable.

Does 'audience' call for 'whom' or for 'which...'
Definitely it is debatable. For me, audience is made up of people, and in speech and writing I tend to treat them with human pronouns. But strictly speaking, audience is made of people but not itself animate, which is why "which" is more common. It could be one of those things that will gradually become acceptable.

The oher thing that drives me bonkers is this:

None of the plastic containers was/were biodegradable.

The correct answer is was, since none is not plural. But in speech especially, it's hard to catch that, and even when reading, if I see a long clause with plural nouns followed by a singular verb, I usually stop, and go back to see what the original noun was.

Anyways, after writing this, I think I can safely say that I'm probably the only person on earth who cares about any of this :)

In the sentence


None of the plastic containers was biodegradable.

is it was because "plastic containers" is a single group?

I really am trying to learn here. My parents didn't teach me the proper rules, and in school they quit teaching grammar after the 3rd grade. I have tried to self teach (by learning in context) but I need to know this stuff (since I homeschool).

I can do it if you still need somebody, but I won't be able to look at it until tomorrow night (Thursday).

I can do it if you still need somebody, but I won't be able to look at it until tomorrow night (Thursday).
Someone took care of it for me, it turns out I had some misplaced commas, and a few run-on sentences. Not too bad.

I do have some general grammar questions tough.

Can someone tell me the rule for who/whom?

I don't want examples so much as "use who when you are talking about...."

and also, the rule for good/well, I think I know that one but I have picked up the proper usage through context and am not sure if I am right.

Good- nouns "that is good chicken"
Well- verbs "you play piano well"

:confused: right?

Can someone tell me the rule for who/whom?

I don't want examples so much as "use who when you are talking about...."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_%28pronoun%29

You got the "good" and "well" right. Here's some more rules you might find useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frequently_misused_English_words

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_English_grammar

...I love Wikipedia.

In the sentence

None of the plastic containers was biodegradable.

is it was because "plastic containers" is a single group?

I really am trying to learn here. My parents didn't teach me the proper rules, and in school they quit teaching grammar after the 3rd grade. I have tried to self teach (by learning in context) but I need to know this stuff (since I homeschool).

According to standard usage, whenever you see a noun phrase with "of", the "of" is describing the main subject of the sentence, but is not the subject itself. In this instance, none is a singular subject, and so a singular verb should be used "none was". No matter what comes after, always focus on the subject of the sentence.

According to standard usage, whenever you see a noun phrase with "of", the "of" is describing the main subject of the sentence, but is not the subject itself. In this instance, none is a singular subject, and so a singular verb should be used "none was". No matter what comes after, always focus on the subject of the sentence.
wow. Thank you, I never knew that. It's so cool to learn something new. :D

Can someone tell me the rule for who/whom?

Who and whom should be used like He and Him:

"Who gave it to whom?"
"He gave it to him"

and also, the rule for good/well, I think I know that one but I have picked up the proper usage through context and am not sure if I am right.

Good- nouns "that is good chicken"
Well- verbs "you play piano well"

:confused: right?

Right. Good is an adjective, so it describes nouns; well is an adverb, so it describes verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs.

Beyond that, question of my own. Is the semicolon in the above sentence used correctly?

Beyond that, question of my own. Is the semicolon in the above sentence used correctly?
Yes, because each side of the semicolon could stand on its own as a sentence, but to link them, since they're on the same subject/answering the same question, the semicolon goes between like that.

Yes, because each side of the semicolon could stand on its own as a sentence, but to link them, since they're on the same subject/answering the same question, the semicolon goes between like that.

Woohoo! Take that semicolons! Your oddities confound me no longer! Ha! Hahaha! HA!

Yes, because each side of the semicolon could stand on its own as a sentence, but to link them, since they're on the same subject/answering the same question, the semicolon goes between like that.
awesome :D I love this thred.

I am going to be super smart after about 6 more posts. ;)

Thank you for sharing the knowledge. :D

Can be clear sentence it's ungrammatical if, how?

Can be clear sentence it's ungrammatical if, how?
It takes patience to decipher a lot of ungrammatical text for most people. Then again, some people write that way all the time and understand it better than they understand nearly-perfect grammatical text. Either way, it is clear to someone, the real question is whether it's clear to the person who's supposed to read it.

Can be clear sentence it's ungrammatical if, how?

Because you can be ungrammatical in ways that don't involve rearranging the words of the sentence. Like ending with a preposition, or starting a sentence with 'And'.

Proper grammar is always warrented. It provides clarity. If people can't understand proper grammar they probably aren't worth your formal letter or paper. This does not mean I use perfect grammar all the time but you should respect and understand it when you see it. Of course, we should all strive to use proper grammar in everyday speech and writing as well. There is no excuse for intentional ignorance; only mistakes. A few of which I have probably made in this post.

Your right!

A few of which I have probably made in this post. -- FRAGMENT!


Now... did anyone spot my obvious faux pas?

Your right!

A few of which I have probably made in this post. -- FRAGMENT!


now... did anyone spot my obvious faux pas?

Well, I didn't think we'd start testing each other.

You're, not your. :rolleyes: Something harder maybe?

Your right!

A few of which I have probably made in this post. -- FRAGMENT!


Now... did anyone spot my obvious faux pas?
Your crazy, that's not obvious. :p

Your right!

A few of which I have probably made in this post. -- FRAGMENT!


Now... did anyone spot my obvious faux pas?
Your should be You're.

Oh, and the word, "Fragment" is a fragment itself.

Your should be You're.

Oh, and the word, "Fragment" is a fragment itself.

You are correct, sir or madam!

Because you can be ungrammatical in ways that don't involve rearranging the words of the sentence. Like ending with a preposition, or starting a sentence with 'And'.
and starting a sentence with because. (I did that a few times in my paper that has since been proofread)

and starting a sentence with because. (I did that a few times in my paper that has since been proofread)

^_^' Yeah....That too. :p

and starting a sentence with because. (I did that a few times in my paper that has since been proofread)
If you do it correctly, you can start a sentence with "because", but most people don't know how, even though it's simple. You put the part that would come before "because" (the part that explains the effects) at the end, after a comma.

I shot the sherriff because he got on my nerves.
Because he got on my nerves, I shot the sherriff.

Most people only write "Because he got on my nerves" because the question asked "Why did you shoot the sherriff?"

and starting a sentence with because. (I did that a few times in my paper that has since been proofread)


You may start a sentence with "because." For example:

Because the United States denounced Russia's potato crop, Moscow is incensed.

(Of course, it could be re-phrased: "Moscow is incensed because the United States...")

Most people only write "Because he got on my nerves" because the question asked "Why did you shoot the sherriff?"

Aye...The constant "restate the question" thing when you're writing the answer directly beneath the question just made it feel redundant...*shrug* >_>

You may start a sentence with "because." For example:

Because the United States denounced Russia's potato crop, Moscow is incensed.

(Of course, it could be re-phrased: "Moscow is incensed because the United States...")

Indeed. The grammatical issue is not starting a sentence with because, but rather only writing half of the sentence.

That said, the rules about sentence fragments are among the most forgiveably breakable grammatical rules out there, especially in conversation. And, of course, many authors choose to begin sentences with conjunctions for effect, even though the result is technically a fragment. :)

^_^' Yeah....That too. :p
:p I knew you would understand.

:p I knew you would understand.

Yup! Down with sentence fragment rules! Rawr! But if we're gonna start sentences with conjunctions, we're gonna capitalize them! And, but, and or want to be capitalized too!

"And, but, and or"? Saying that out loud, it's very confusing.

You may start a sentence with "because." For example:

Because the United States denounced Russia's potato crop, Moscow is incensed.

(Of course, it could be re-phrased: "Moscow is incensed because the United States...")
It seems clearer the second way.

It seems clearer the second way.
It is, but the first way makes you sound like you know more about the subject, which can be helpful sometimes, like when you try to bull your way through an essay or exam. :cool:

It is, but the first way makes you sound like you know more about the subject, which can be helpful sometimes, like when you try to bull your way through an essay or exam. :cool:
Oh, see if my kids try to bull their way through their school work I just give them an F.

Oh, see if my kids try to bull their way through their school work I just give them an F.
lol Good on you! I've known a lot of people who've had to bull their way through their work, so I know most of the tricks. Then again, I've been devoted to Grammar Nazi-ing for so long, I know most of the tricks for most things, anyway!

English is a complex language where meaning can easily become lost, particularly when using wit or subtext, the most important thing is -undoubtedly- clarity. The rules of grammar are important, but not at the expense of clarity. The average person does not know the rules of English grammar well enough to use them without destroying the clarity of his/her writing.

Obviously we cannot throw caution to the wind when using English, either. It is important to strike a balance or -again- clarity will be lost, as a lack of grammar makes English unintelligible.

I have this thing I need proof read, and I know some of you are better at the clarity vs. grammar rules than I am. Is anyone here willing to proof something important for me? I could email it to you.

Also, which is more important proper grammar or clarity?

I know for a fact that there are some really old rules, that are proper but when used it makes a sentence awkward because we don't talk like that any more.


Please, excuse my spelling/grammar mistakes in this post.

Clarity and Grammatical correctness go hand-in-hand. It may not seem that way, but Grammar is meant to make sentances more clear. Spoken English is different from written English, so rules not followed in speaking must be followed in writing.

Clarity and Grammatical correctness go hand-in-hand. It may not seem that way, but Grammar is meant to make sentances more clear. Spoken English is different from written English, so rules not followed in speaking must be followed in writing.

Well it's more that what determines clarity is the person reading it, and most of the people that read nowadays find things that are grammatically incorrect clearer. If it's some kind of professor, yeah go with rules, but a general public sort of thing? Probably best going with what they'll understand, unless you have time to teach them the proper rules of grammar.

Clarity and Grammatical correctness go hand-in-hand. It may not seem that way, but Grammar is meant to make sentances more clear. Spoken English is different from written English, so rules not followed in speaking must be followed in writing.
A good example of this, is that we speak and think in sentence fragments. However, sentence fragments distrupt clarity and are a grammatic faux pau in written text.

Well it's more that what determines clarity is the person reading it, and most of the people that read nowadays find things that are grammatically incorrect clearer. If it's some kind of professor, yeah go with rules, but a general public sort of thing? Probably best going with what they'll understand, unless you have time to teach them the proper rules of grammar.
No, the problem is most writers do not understand the grammatic rules they are applying.

Let us take a look at split infinitives, for an example. Many writers will actively avoid a split infinitive. A split infinitive is where an adverb occurs between marker and infinitive verb. (eg "To run". "To" is the marker, "run" is the infinitive verb). The sentence become a split infinitive, where the adverb "quickly" is placed before the verb "run". (eg "To quickly run"). Now, if this was all there was the only statement in this sentence, then by all means the split infinitive must be corrected. (eg "To run quickly"). However, if there is more substantive claim in the sentence, then correcting the split infinitive will disrupt clarity. (eg "To run, seeing the rising moon"). In this case, the split infinitive form (eg "To quickly run, seeing the rising moon") has a separate and different meaning to the infinitive form (eg "To run, quickly seeing the setting moon). In the first example, the adverb "quickly" is an epithet (description) for the the verb "run". In the second example, the adverb "quickly" is an epithet for verb "seeing". The two meanings are therefore different.
The conclusion can then be drawn that complying with a grammatic rule, can sometimes break the clarity of a sentence. That is not to say we shouldn't avoid split infinitives, but rather that we must first understand their correct nature, before attempting to correct them. It is better to be understood with poor grammar, then to commit the fallacy of intention (failing to have the reader understand your intent) with correct [grammar].

No, the problem is most writers do not understand the grammatic rules they are applying.

Let us take a look at split infinitives, for an example. Many writers will actively avoid a split infinitive. A split infinitive is where an adverb occurs between marker and infinitive verb. (eg "To run". "To" is the marker, "run" is the infinitive verb). The sentence become a split infinitive, where the adverb "quickly" is placed before the verb "run". (eg "To quickly run"). Now, if this was all there was the only statement in this sentence, then by all means the split infinitive must be corrected. (eg "To run quickly"). However, if there is more substantive claim in the sentence, then correcting the split infinitive will disrupt clarity. (eg "To run, seeing the rising moon"). In this case, the split infinitive form (eg "To quickly run, seeing the rising moon") has a separate and different meaning to the infinitive form (eg "To run, quickly seeing the setting moon). In the first example, the adverb "quickly" is an epithet (description) for the the verb "run". In the second example, the adverb "quickly" is an epithet for verb "seeing". The two meanings are therefore different.
The conclusion can then be drawn that complying with a grammatic rule, can sometimes break the clarity of a sentence. That is not to say we shouldn't avoid split infinitives, but rather that we must first understand their correct nature, before attempting to correct them. It is better to be understood with poor grammar, then to commit the fallacy of intention (failing to have the reader understand your intent) with correct [grammar].

Umm...Kay...Split infinitives wasn't the first to come to mind...but I'm just saying clearer sometimes isn't grammatically correct, because clarity is more the readers judgement.

Umm...Kay...Split infinitives wasn't the first to come to mind...but I'm just saying clearer sometimes isn't grammatically correct, because clarity is more the readers judgement.
Let's define -for the sake of this discussion- 'clear' as meaning 'capable of conveying the writer's intent to the read'.

Using the aforementioned definition, it can be seen through my example of split infinitives, that clarity can be disrupted by correct grammar. However, by the same token, incorrect grammar can also disrupt clarity. What is important to remember, is that English is a Germanic language and as such, makes use of Latin grammar. Furthermore, English borrows heavily from Romantic influence in spoken word, style and a good deal of English common use. It is the combination of the contrasting style of Germanic and Romantic language that creates the inconsistencies in English.

It is therefore the duty of the writer, to ensure that he/she writes in a manner that is understandable. Poor grammar can be forgiven, poor communication cannot.

Let's define -for the sake of this discussion- 'clear' as meaning 'capable of conveying the writer's intent to the read'.

Using the aforementioned definition, it can be seen through my example of split infinitives, that clarity can be disrupted by correct grammar. However, by the same token, incorrect grammar can also disrupt clarity. What is important to remember, is that English is a Germanic language and as such, makes use of Latin grammar. Furthermore, English borrows heavily from Romantic influence in spoken word, style and a good deal of English common use. It is the combination of the contrasting style of Germanic and Romantic language that creates the inconsistencies in English.

It is therefore the duty of the writer, to ensure that he/she writes in a manner that is understandable. Poor grammar can be forgiven, poor communication cannot.

....Wasn't that my point?

....Wasn't that my point?
Who knows. I was too busy crazking up at How to Kill a Mocking Bird

Who knows. I was too busy crazking up at How to Kill a Mocking Bird

Ah, understandable *nod*

The oher thing that drives me bonkers is this:

None of the plastic containers was/were biodegradable.

The correct answer is was, since none is not plural. But in speech especially, it's hard to catch that, and even when reading, if I see a long clause with plural nouns followed by a singular verb, I usually stop, and go back to see what the original noun was.

Anyways, after writing this, I think I can safely say that I'm probably the only person on earth who cares about any of this :)


I believe a counter-argument could be made for considering "none" to be plural. The way I see it, the meaning of none is "not one", therefore not singular. None is never used to refer to one object. It is always used to refer to multiple objects, so it would be plural.

My personal grammatical pet peeve is when people try to anglicize the case of words taken straight from Latin. There are no octupuses, only octopi, and, as was pointed out in Mystery Men, the plural of nemesis is nemeses, not nemesises.

I believe a counter-argument could be made for considering "none" to be plural. The way I see it, the meaning of none is "not one", therefore not singular. None is never used to refer to one object. It is always used to refer to multiple objects, so it would be plural.

My personal grammatical pet peeve is when people try to anglicize the case of words taken straight from Latin. There are no octupuses, only octopi, and, as was pointed out in Mystery Men, the plural of nemesis is nemeses, not nemesises.
Correct, 'none' is a plural, anyone who has studied Logic and Reason -particularly Propositional Calculus or Quantificational Theory- will have gotten around the idea that you can have multiple negatives.

Definitely it is debatable. For me, audience is made up of people, and in speech and writing I tend to treat them with human pronouns. But strictly speaking, audience is made of people but not itself animate, which is why "which" is more common. It could be one of those things that will gradually become acceptable.

The oher thing that drives me bonkers is this:

None of the plastic containers was/were biodegradable.

The correct answer is was, since none is not plural. But in speech especially, it's hard to catch that, and even when reading, if I see a long clause with plural nouns followed by a singular verb, I usually stop, and go back to see what the original noun was.

Anyways, after writing this, I think I can safely say that I'm probably the only person on earth who cares about any of this :)


"Audience" is highly abstracted in the example, and I think that this is a strong reason to use "which."

On the second point, you're simply wrong.

Fowler's entry for "none," concerning this usage:

"It is a mistake to suppose that the pronoun is singular only and must at all cost be followed by singular verbs etc.; the OED explicitly states that the plural construction is commoner."


Two mistakes in pedantry-after-a-fashion qualify you as grammarjuden, and I'm sure you're aware what we grammar nazis do with grammarjuden.

http://wl.middlebury.edu/WP100AF03/stories/storyReader$34

and

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0760735786/104-1661664-7579137?v=glance&n=283155

I believe a counter-argument could be made for considering "none" to be plural. The way I see it, the meaning of none is "not one", therefore not singular. None is never used to refer to one object. It is always used to refer to multiple objects, so it would be plural.

My personal grammatical pet peeve is when people try to anglicize the case of words taken straight from Latin. There are no octupuses, only octopi, and, as was pointed out in Mystery Men, the plural of nemesis is nemeses, not nemesises.
True enough. Consider: "None of my pens works." I think it sounds much better as "none of my pens work." But the first is correct.

Now consider:

"One duck is hurt."
"Two ducks are hurt."
"No ducks is/are hurt?"

It certainly sounds better as "no ducks are hurt."

The fine line is between what sounds acceptable and what is clearly incorrect speech. At the end of the day, if enough people start making the same error, it becomes normalized.

"Audience" is highly abstracted in the example, and I think that this is a strong reason to use "which."

On the second point, you're simply wrong.

Fowler's entry for "none," concerning this usage:

"It is a mistake to suppose that the pronoun is singular only and must at all cost be followed by singular verbs etc.; the OED explicitly states that the plural construction is commoner."


Two mistakes in pedantry-after-a-fashion qualify you as grammarjuden, and I'm sure you're aware what we grammar nazis do with grammarjuden.
OMG! You mean my grade 2 teacher was really .... gasp.... wrong? The world's coming to an end! :D

"It’s uncertain who started the notion that none requires a singular verb, but it’s pervasive, both in the US and Britain, and seems to have been drummed into the heads of generations of schoolchildren. However, all the usage guides—and the usage notes in every dictionary that I can find—are unanimous in saying that it’s wrong."http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-non2.htm

I've used none and others like it with plural verbs in speech because it sounds better, but I always thought I was being a grammar rebel... in reality I'm nothing but a poser! woe is me!

On the audience thing, I was never arguing that whom is right. Which may be more technically correct but in speech I'll use whom dammit! :)

PS. Is commoner even a word? :D

My personal grammatical pet peeve is when people try to anglicize the case of words taken straight from Latin. There are no octupuses, only octopi, and, as was pointed out in Mystery Men, the plural of nemesis is nemeses, not nemesises.

The plural of referendum, however, is referendums. :)

My personal grammatical pet peeve is when people try to anglicize the case of words taken straight from Latin. There are no octupuses, only octopi, and, as was pointed out in Mystery Men, the plural of nemesis is nemeses, not nemesises.

As a matter of incidence, octopus came originally from Greek edit *before passing into Latin* and as such, the plural is octopuses.

OMG! You mean my grade 2 teacher was really .... gasp.... wrong? The world's coming to an end! :D

"It’s uncertain who started the notion that none requires a singular verb, but it’s pervasive, both in the US and Britain, and seems to have been drummed into the heads of generations of schoolchildren. However, all the usage guides—and the usage notes in every dictionary that I can find—are unanimous in saying that it’s wrong."http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-non2.htm

I've used none and others like it with plural verbs in speech because it sounds better, but I always thought I was being a grammar rebel... in reality I'm nothing but a poser! woe is me!

On the audience thing, I was never arguing that whom is right. Which may be more technically correct but in speech I'll use whom dammit! :)

PS. Is commoner even a word? :D


If Fowler uses it, it's clearly a word.


You should get a copy of Fowler's usage book and hit the offending teacher with it.

Proper grammar is an aid to clarity, surely?

One of this guy's largest complaints is that proper grammar involves the usage of language that differs from the spoken word, which is then somehow confusing. What he fails to grasp is that the written word is supposed to be significantly different than the spoken word because more time is allowed to think things through. While words like "whom" may be annoying, English is comparatively lucky compared to Arabic, whose written language is almost another language entirely. The differences between its spoken word and written word is comparable to the differences between any Romance language and Latin.

Will people just give it a rest with the '-nazi' suffix when referring to people who are slightly more conscientious/pedantic/annoying than average when it comes to spelling and grammer?

It's hardly appropriate terminology.

Will people just give it a rest with the '-nazi' suffix when referring to people who are slightly more conscientious/pedantic/annoying than average when it comes to spelling and grammer?

It's hardly appropriate terminology.

You obviously aren't :P. Would you rather grammar fascist?

It seems clearer the second way.

The second way (re: beginning sentences with "Because") is more straightforward... but the first way (Because the United States...) makes the writer sound -- hmmm -- perhaps a bit more like an expert, scientist, professor.

True enough. Consider: "None of my pens works." I think it sounds much better as "none of my pens work." But the first is correct.

Now consider:

"One duck is hurt."
"Two ducks are hurt."
"No ducks is/are hurt?"

It certainly sounds better as "no ducks are hurt."

The fine line is between what sounds acceptable and what is clearly incorrect speech. At the end of the day, if enough people start making the same error, it becomes normalized.
Pluralisation is not the only consideration in the use of "is" or "are". In fact it is not the most important, as "is" and "are" are grammatic holdouts from German and relate to the nature of the subject.

Proper grammar is an aid to clarity, surely?
My split infinitive example proves this is not always the case. The issue is English is a fusion of Germain and Romance language, which creates our common grammatic and spelling concerns.

Hail Webster!


....


What, you thought I would post something constructive?

Will people just give it a rest with the '-nazi' suffix when referring to people who are slightly more conscientious/pedantic/annoying than average when it comes to spelling and grammer?

It's hardly appropriate terminology.



You'll change your mind when you misuse the subjunctive and we gas you to death and then burn your body in an oven.