Slashdot Mirror


The Great Typo Hunt

jamie writes "Incensed by a 'no tresspassing' sign, Jeff Deck launched a cross-country trip to right grammatical wrongs. He enlisted a friend, Benjamin D. Herson, and together they erased errant quotation marks, rectified misspellings and cut unnecessary possessive apostrophes. The Great Typo Hunt is the story of their crusade." We have already covered the duo's fight with The National Park Service.

416 comments

  1. He would be right at home on slashdot by pgmrdlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another grammar Nazi

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    1. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me correct that for you.

      Another grammar Nazi.

    2. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots. Since when are grammar and mechanics errors necessarily the same as typographical errors?

    3. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fucking top-poster

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tuesday last

    5. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps they could ask The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks for some locations to fix. ;) My favorites are this and this.

      --
      "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
    6. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. We have an ironclad defense. Well, as long as they don't show up in Belgium, IL.

    7. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I bow to your superior grammar Nazism.

    8. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically they are grammar guerillas.

    9. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I bow to your superior grammar Nazism.

      Well, superiority is one of the things Nazis always go on about....

    10. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      You missed the full-stop.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    11. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to capitalize Slashdot and you forgot to add a period at the end. Wow, your an idiot.

    12. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good grief, talk about anal retentive.

      Only on N.P.R. can they make a career out of glorifying people who have no life.

    13. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm on slashdot, and these idle entries need to go back to Enquirer.net for those who want to know.

      Yeah, I'm AC here (don't login at work), diminishing proud slashdotter since slashdot's inception (AKA chips and dips).

    14. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think you're the idiot.

    15. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Abstrackt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fucking top-poster

      , how do they work?

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    16. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Nice flourish...

    17. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by antdude · · Score: 1

      So would I. I am the nazi on my own ant forum. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    18. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I assume they used the Samuel Johnson dictionary, which is the *ONLY* concise compendium of the English Language...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    19. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Sorry...but you loose...

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because sentences verblessness, not real sentence. So not stop needed.

    21. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by yellowstone · · Score: 1

      In my original timeline, the zombie apocalypse was initially triggered by roving gangs of grammar Nazis.

      --
      150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
    22. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Idiots."

      Sentence no verbs.

    23. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice job missing the joke.

    24. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Thing+I+am · · Score: 1

      You must be a bottom.

      --
      That sucking sound you hear is my bandwidth.
    25. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by Jeprey · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new grammar Nazi overlords!

    26. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      if you can't handle top posting.

      so C your way out of it

      This is an A/B conversation

    27. Re:He would be right at home on slashdot by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Wrong! No period needed as "Another grammar Nazi" is not a complete sentence.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
  2. less / fewer by flynt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope they went to every store with an "express lane for less than 10 items". Shudder.

    1. Re:less / fewer by Itninja · · Score: 1

      Or my favorite: "We now serving expresso!"

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    2. Re:less / fewer by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Does it annoy anyone else here when some bastard sneaks in to the less than 10 items queue with actually 10 items?

      Just me, then?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:less / fewer by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I've always seen them signed as "10 items or less" (or 15, or 12, or a few other relatively small numbers).

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    4. Re:less / fewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it annoy anyone else here when some bastard sneaks in to the less than 10 items queue with actually 10 items?

      Just me, then?

      The point of those lines is to keep things moving, not to enforce arbitrary limits. The clerks are trained to usher in people with 11 (or 20) items rather than turn customers away while the regular checkouts pile up.

    5. Re:less / fewer by AllergicToMilk · · Score: 2

      And, most people fail to realize that this is a problem because the word should be "fewer" not "less". Double shudder.

      --
      There are only 6,863,795,529 types of people in the world.
    6. Re:less / fewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, thank Jehovah someone clarified this. Who says /. isn't educational?

    7. Re:less / fewer by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Someone else is already working on it

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    8. Re:less / fewer by digitig · · Score: 0

      Because it used to be the case that it should be "fewer", not "less", and some people don't realise that language changes and are trying to keep it as it was 50 years ago.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    9. Re:less / fewer by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Does it annoy you when people go through with a dozen eggs?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:less / fewer by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      If they are all in the same basket, not at all.

    11. Re:less / fewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always seem them signed as "about 10 items or less". No one should be fretting that you brought 12 cans of dog food into the express lane instead of 10.

    12. Re:less / fewer by TreyGeek · · Score: 1

      No need to ... Weird Al already took care of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uQ_extNBDA&feature=related

    13. Re:less / fewer by severoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From dictionary.com: "Even though less has been used before plural nouns ( less words; less men ) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns ( less sugar; less money ) and singular abstract nouns ( less honesty; less love ). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states."

      It's no surprise that people don't understand this distinction. Look at the confusion around the word data, which has become popular over the last decade or two to treat as a plural ("The data suggest..." when it should be "The data suggests..."). I'm quite certain that many people will protest this post, that "data" is plural, and treating it as such is correct.

      If "data" is plural, then so are the following: sugar, information, hair, media, agenda... The agenda are prepared. My hair are blonde.

      Idiots. :-p

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    14. Re:less / fewer by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      "Vegetarian chili-con-carne", my favourite. I suppose it's more of an oxymoron than a typo but still...

    15. Re:less / fewer by hardburn · · Score: 1

      The rule shouldn't be some arbitrary limit. Rather, if you can hold everything you're buying one of those small baskets or half-sized carts plus your free hand, then you can use the express lane.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    16. Re:less / fewer by Saberwind · · Score: 1

      It's simpler to summarize it this way:

      Use *fewer* for integers.

      Use *less* for real numbers.

    17. Re:less / fewer by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Data is plural. It represents multiple points each of which could be referred to as a "datum". Some one would say "the datum suggests" if a single point could suggest something. But when you have multiple points, you have data, which can possibly suggest something. (I know, I know correlation is not causation, this is grammar nazi, not statistics nazi) I always use "the data suggests". Of course, it could be argued that "data" is a collective noun that is singular but refers to a group. However, based on the origin of the word, it is the plural form of datum from Latin.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    18. Re:less / fewer by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      And the real solution is to have one line with people directed to registers as they open up. Like practically every other queuing system out there (banks, DMV, etc.). Why retail gets this so wrong is beyond me.

      --

    19. Re:less / fewer by uglyduckling · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Data" is plural; the singular is "datum". Just like errata and erratum. In a sense you're right, "data" has turned into a popular word and its meaning is changing, but trying to claim that it has recently become popular to use it as plural is completely wrong; rather the reverse is true.

    20. Re:less / fewer by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, who cares if people go into the express lane with a couple more items than the sign says?

      What really irritates me are the people who go through the express line, then open their checkbook to write a check. They usually don't even bother to start filling it out until they have a total, either.

      Yeah, thanks for grasping the meaning of "express," asshole!

    21. Re:less / fewer by flynt · · Score: 1

      The Lund's grocer I shop at in Northeast Minneapolis does it just this way. Another reason I feel justified spending 20% more for my food :).

      The fact that they bag your groceries is another reason. It's common in MN to have to do it yourself.

    22. Re:less / fewer by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      What's a checkbook?
      What's a check?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    23. Re:less / fewer by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I could care less what you think

    24. Re:less / fewer by tsa · · Score: 1

      I haven't used those in twenty years.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    25. Re:less / fewer by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Why retail gets this so wrong is beyond me

      Argh. My local supermarket is like night of the living dead. Abandoned people and trolleys/shopping-carts scattered near the checkout - effectively blocking the whole walkway down the length of the supermarket near the checkouts :(

      Only once have I seen this done well. In a Tesco Metro in Manchester city centre (UK) - a single queue feeding a double line of checkouts but they could get away with this kind of layout because it was basket-only.

    26. Re:less / fewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they went to every store with an "express lane for less than 10 items". Shudder.

      In mathematics, is the < operator referred to as 'fewer than" if it is operating on the set of integers?

      If so, in HTML, will we need to use the &ft; entity to represent <?

      Now I'm going to have to go through my Python code and add def __ft__(self, other): everywhere I have def __lt__(self, other): to handle int parameters.

    27. Re:less / fewer by severoon · · Score: 1

      But when you have multiple points, you have data, which can possibly suggest something.

      One may also have venereal disease, which can possibly suggest something about that person. Would you argue that "venereal disease" is plural because it is proper to say "suggest" in that sentence instead of "suggests"?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    28. Re:less / fewer by severoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not like errata and erratum. Common usage of errata maintains the separate identity of the individual items within the group: We've collected errata for this textbook over a 12 month period. (Each erratum trickled in from readers; the entire set didn't show up all at once.) On the other hand, if you refer to them as a group: The errata is ready for formatting. (Each individual item is not going to be formatted independently—the formatting will be applied to the errata as a whole, all at once. The implied measure word is "section," as in the errata section of a book that is to be formatted.)

      Data is actually more like agenda and media.

      :->

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    29. Re:less / fewer by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      I think he means cheque, for those of you in the civilized world.

    30. Re:less / fewer by wokwon · · Score: 1

      For those in the civilised world, that would be "cheque book" and "cheque".

    31. Re:less / fewer by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The rule shouldn't be some arbitrary limit. Rather, if you can hold everything you're buying one of those small baskets or half-sized carts plus your free hand, then you can use the express lane.

      So someone with a hundred chocolate bars and hair clips that have to be registered individually should be allowed to use the express lane, while someone with tree identical bags of charcoal shouldn't?

      My proposal: Charge fifty cents for every item above 10, and a buck surcharge if you use a slow method of payment (cheques, food stamps, multiple coins).

    32. Re:less / fewer by aiht · · Score: 1

      I could care fewer what you think

      There, look what you made me do! Are you happy now?

    33. Re:less / fewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And fewer care what you think.

    34. Re:less / fewer by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I think he means cheque, for those of you in the civilized world.

      Wait, there's a civilized world now?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    35. Re:less / fewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One may also have venereal disease, which can possibly suggest something about that person

      Different usage case - adding in 'possibly' masks that your verb is 'can' not 'suggest'. Try it thusly:

      One may also have venereal disease, which possibly suggest something about that person

      and you'll realise your error.

    36. Re:less / fewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he means cheque, for those of you in the civilised world.

      FTFY.

      Love and kisses,
      The Civilised World.

    37. Re:less / fewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the confusion around the word data, which has become popular over the last decade or two to treat as a plural

      "data" is plural. The singular is "datum".

      Maybe it's fine to use "data" as a singular, but please: don't make up another rule out of it.

    38. Re:less / fewer by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      'civilised' ? More like the league of dirty, no good z haters.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    39. Re:less / fewer by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It’s a sort of debit card which requires you to fill out paperwork every time you pay someone and they won’t know whether or not you actually had the money in your account until several days later.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    40. Re:less / fewer by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      In mathematics, is the < operator referred to as 'fewer than" if it is operating on the set of integers?

      I wasn’t aware that the relational operators could take sets as arguments.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    41. Re:less / fewer by severoon · · Score: 1

      That was precisely my point. The poster I was responding to argued that data is plural because "data can suggests" is incorrect grammar.

      The point of my post is that "data can suggests" is incorrect because "can suggests" is wrong—it has nothing to do with the subject being singular or plural.

      This is going to be a difficult thread if people don't carefully read the posts and understand them before responding. At least you had the intelligence to not associate your username with this post. :-)

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    42. Re:less / fewer by severoon · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's fine to use "data" as a singular, but please: don't make up another rule out of it.

      If it is fine to use data as a singular, as you suggest, then how would I be making up another rule?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    43. Re:less / fewer by AllergicToMilk · · Score: 1

      Yes, the language changes. Inasmuch as people can change the language, people can resist it changing. I resist the language changing primarily when the change makes the language less precise. Other changes tend not to trouble me.

      In any case, I don't believe the formal definitions of the words have yet changed so you are incorrect. Read a dictionary for usage and compare "less" and "fewer" and become less ignorant.

      --
      There are only 6,863,795,529 types of people in the world.
    44. Re:less / fewer by digitig · · Score: 1

      Yes, the language changes. Inasmuch as people can change the language, people can resist it changing. I resist the language changing primarily when the change makes the language less precise. Other changes tend not to trouble me.

      Language naturally tends to preserve precision that matters to the users of the language, introduce new distinctions that matter to the language users, and lose distinctions that don't matter to language users. The distinction between "less" and "fewer" (and yes, I do know the supposed distinction) only seems to matter to people who want to show off that they know the distinction, which isn't a very strong basis for keeping a distinction in a language.

      In any case, I don't believe the formal definitions of the words have yet changed so you are incorrect. Read a dictionary for usage and compare "less" and "fewer" and become less ignorant.

      I love becoming less ignorant, and reading a dictionary might indeed help me with that, although one of the first things I learned on my English Language degree was the difference between descriptive and prescriptive sources. Anyway, I think it's you who have something to learn in the case of "less" and "fewer":

      "less, a. (n.), adv., and conj.
      ...
      c. A smaller number of; fewer.
      (Oxford English Dictionary)

      The earliest cited reference for that usage is from King Alfred in c.888 CE ("Swa mid læs worda swa mid ma, swæer we hit ereccan maon"), so it's had plenty of time to make its way into the dictionary.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    45. Re:less / fewer by AllergicToMilk · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension FTW. Read a little lower to the "usage" section as I suggested. That people have (mis)used "less" that way is not in question.

      --
      There are only 6,863,795,529 types of people in the world.
    46. Re:less / fewer by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      I think it has something to do with draughts.

    47. Re:less / fewer by shikaisi · · Score: 1

      That's right, this may have escaped your notice in the USA, where the culture has made the transition directly from barbarism to decadence without going through an intervening period of civilization.

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
  3. Typo or ... by jaymz666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NPR really needs to learn the difference between a typo (i.e. a slip of the finger) and bad spelling and grammar.

    1. Re:Typo or ... by jaymz666 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and they only found 437 "typos"? Did they not look very hard?

    2. Re:Typo or ... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      The Great Typo and Bad Spelling and Grammar Hunt just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

    3. Re:Typo or ... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      If they had looked at international places, surely they would have found 850 "typos."

      (If you don't get it, google for 437 850)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Typo or ... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      It's the name of the book, and how the author refers to his findings. NPR has nothing to do with it.

    5. Re:Typo or ... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      NPR really needs to learn the difference between a typo (i.e. a slip of the finger) and bad spelling and grammar.

      As long as they correctly note that the one is a subset of the other, rather than (as some mistakenly believe) disjoint sets, I agree. Typos result in spelling or grammar errors, but not all spelling and grammar errors are typos.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    6. Re:Typo or ... by binkzz · · Score: 1

      NPR really needs to learn the difference between a typo (i.e. a slip of the finger) and bad spelling and grammar.

      You probably mean "e.g." and not "i.e.". Or was that a typo? :-"

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    7. Re:Typo or ... by M8e · · Score: 1

      Not all typos result in spelling or grammar errors, some typos is not even in sentences or words. For example page numbering, mathematical formulas or even ascii art.

      Try to find typos, broken gramatical rules or words that don't pass a spell check in the sentences below:
      -Is that candlestick made of bass?
      -No, it's anodized aluminum.

    8. Re:Typo or ... by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      -No, it's anodized aluminum.

      Ah, the classic example of a typo - (allegedly). The story is that the word was misspelled on advertising in the ninteenth century, and just stuck. Some people disagree, but the fact that patent applications by the same firm use the spelling 'aluminium' lend creedence to the claim.

      IUPAC did try to sort this out a while ago, but swiftly folded in the face of massive indifference from the American people. Seems a bit unfair to me, since we Brits got saddled with the US spelling of 'sulfur' in the same drive for standardization, and seem to have adopted it pretty universally.

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    9. Re:Typo or ... by unitron · · Score: 1

      Allow me to insert these words to avoid capitalizing the first letter of either "i.e" or "e.g" and point out that "i.e" means "that is" and "e.g." means "for example".

      A typographical error is pretty much always, if not a slip, then an unintended misplacement of a finger.

      I refer, of course, to the placement of one's finger on a part of the keyboard other than the one intended at that moment, and not to leaving body parts lying around.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    10. Re:Typo or ... by unitron · · Score: 1

      ...some typos is not even in sentences or words.

      No, they certainly isn't.

      -Is that candlestick made of bass?

      Perhaps it's made of some wood other than bass.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    11. Re:Typo or ... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Ah ha! I knew something smelled fishy.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  4. Slashdot by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

    Their heads would explode reading Slashdot.

    1. Re:Slashdot by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      Their heads would explode reading Slashdot.

      You loose. Slashdot has it's own set of rules. Besides, you should of said "asplode".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Slashdot by hierofalcon · · Score: 1, Funny

      You should have used the word lose instead of loose.

    3. Re:Slashdot by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Although I typically despise spelling Nazis, why couldn't they start here?

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/04/16/the-most-ridiculous-tea-party-protest-signs/

      Think of the Tea Baggers...

    4. Re:Slashdot by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can you use the word "whoosh" in a sentence?

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Slashdot by nizo · · Score: 1

      The Moran sign predates the Tea Party.

    6. Re:Slashdot by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      I could care less about Slashdot's rules.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    7. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the bright side. At least he as a group he can call his own. He'll fit right in...

    8. Re:Slashdot by ElKry · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Whoosh", wrote the slashdotter with a smile on his face, feeling superior to the parent poster but slightly uneasy, for he was haunted by the possibility of nourishing a troll instead of educating the masses.

    9. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! You are right! He also misplaced an apostrophe! Whatever shall we do?!!??

    10. Re:Slashdot by whyde · · Score: 1

      asplode: what your head looks like after going through an asplundh

    11. Re:Slashdot by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      it's

      You were joking, but I honestly use that, and refuse to believe that it is incorrect. I don't see any reason why I can't use a saxon genitive with pronouns.

      I stepped on the cat's tail

      I stepped on it's tail

      See? Logical. And screw contractions, why should they take precedence?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    12. Re:Slashdot by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      You should have used the word lose instead of loose.

      ...and it should be "should have", not "should of".

    13. Re:Slashdot by Megane · · Score: 1

      Common, give me a brake hear.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    14. Re:Slashdot by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I could care less about Slashdot's rules.

      Do you actually mean that Slashdot's rules are fine? If so, your post is redundant. Or maybe you meant to say you couldn't care less...

    15. Re:Slashdot by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      You acknowledge that a noun and a pronoun are different, then argue that they shouldn't be treated differently?

      Next you'll be arguing that all adverbs should be joined to their object by a hyphen even if they already end in -ly.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    16. Re:Slashdot by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      They preform the same role in that sentence, as far as I am concerned there isn't a reason they can't use the same convention to indicate possession.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    17. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and it should of been "should have", not "should of".

      FTFY :)

    18. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not many people know this, but "moran" is actually the original spelling of the word. The phonetic Americanization resulting in the syntactic variation "moron" happened in much the same way a lot of last names have morphed to phonetically "correct" spelling in North America. While there is no hard evidence to support it, it is generally thought that a handful of undereducated government copy clerks and immigration clerks were the single biggest influence on American English, prior to text messaging.

    19. Re:Slashdot by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      What a bunch of dumbasse's.

    20. Re:Slashdot by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I sing bass and I'm not dumb!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    21. Re:Slashdot by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Whoosh", wrote the slashdotter with a smile on his face, feeling superior to the parent poster but slightly uneasy, for he was haunted by the possibility of nourishing a troll instead of educating the masses.

      But now we're going to have to have a debate on whether American or British rules for comma placement near a set of quotation marks are ideal, especially since you used double-quotes (traditionally American) with the British comma placement. I applaud your multiculturalism.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    22. Re:Slashdot by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Enough with your add-homynym attacks!

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    23. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whoosh", wrote the /.er feeling superior his face isn't (singular) a smile, the parent posters ain't (plural) slightly uneasy. %~P

    24. Re:Slashdot by adonoman · · Score: 1

      They preform the same role

      At least they aren't trying to postform the role.

    25. Re:Slashdot by ElKry · · Score: 1

      I applaud your multiculturalism.

      And you didn't even know that I'm a Spanish guy who is married to an American girl raised in London.

    26. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stepped on the woman's tail
      I stepped on her tail

      I stepped on the man's tail
      I stepped on his tail

      I stepped on the cat's tail
      I stepped on its tail

    27. Re:Slashdot by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Informative

      I dropped the dish.
      I dropped the dishes.

      I dropped the fish.
      I dropped the fish.

      Different words act differently. In this case "it" seems to get an "s" sound for the same reason "cat" gets an "s" sound. Leaving out the "'" just because it is a pronoun is dumb.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    28. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you lose.

    29. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, fair enough, but it seems like you're a couple centuries late to fight for it. It was granted possessive pronoun status instead of possessive noun status a while back.

      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=its

    30. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You loose. Slashdot has it's own set of rules. Besides, you should of said "asplode".

      You lose.

      There, fixed it for you.

    31. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In addition, reference should have been made to Natalie Portman, grits, a Soviet Russia reversal, and a car analogy.

    32. Re:Slashdot by grcumb · · Score: 1

      it's

      You were joking, but I honestly use that, and refuse to believe that it is incorrect. I don't see any reason why I can't use a saxon genitive with pronouns.

      I stepped on the cat's tail

      I stepped on it's tail

      See? Logical. And screw contractions, why should they take precedence?

      You'r logic is inescapable. If someone tells you otherwise, tell him he can take hi's grammar and shove it.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    33. Re:Slashdot by unitron · · Score: 1

      Not many, if any, of the dumb can sing, despite how intelligent they may be.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    34. Re:Slashdot by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      His, hers, and its are all possessive pronouns. None of them have an apostrophe.

      It’s is the contraction of “it is”.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    35. Re:Slashdot by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention ours, theirs, yours, mine, and whose...

      All possessive pronouns are spelled without an apostrophe.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  5. Kind of douchey. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Excessive abuse of grammar is frustrating and it can be enjoyable on occasion to correct it, but something about these guys just make me view them as douches. I'm not surprised that it was featured on NPR, of all places.

    Of all the things to obsess over and waste your time "contributing" to in this world, correcting government signs is going to be it? Really?!

    1. Re:Kind of douchey. by magarity · · Score: 1

      Of all the things to obsess over and waste your time "contributing" to in this world
       
      They didn't waste time; the book is for sale on Kindle for $9.99. They're like the guy who did SuperSize Me in that the activity was research for the real product.

    2. Re:Kind of douchey. by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't really count that as part of the benefit, since I have a general distaste for "random guy starts up popular blogspot page and turns it into a book!" stuff. Imagine how much that must piss off a real author with something they're having a hard time publishing? Damn.

    3. Re:Kind of douchey. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Meh. I saw the lead grammar Nazi of the pair on one of the national morning news programs sometime on the past week.

      It's not like NPR has a monopoly on things-that-are-somewhat-interesting-but-pretty-stupid. They're actually late to the party on this one.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Kind of douchey. by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Kind of? More like supremely...

      http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/22/20080822grammarcops0822.html

      On March 28, while at Desert View Watchtower on the South Rim, they used a white-out product and a permanent marker to deface a sign painted more than 60 years ago by artist Mary Colter. The sign, a National Historic Landmark, was considered unique and irreplaceable, according to Sandy Raynor, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    5. Re:Kind of douchey. by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine how much that must piss off a real author with something they're having a hard time publishing
       
      What's the difference between a real author whose book isn't published and a random guy whose book is published?
       
      One of them is a real author.

    6. Re:Kind of douchey. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just being a douche, too, but taking a bunch of postcards people send in to you and reproducing them in something with a couple covers and an ISBN doesn't really qualify someone as an "author" in my mind. Same with these guys.

    7. Re:Kind of douchey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that's not what they did?

    8. Re:Kind of douchey. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I didn't really count that as part of the benefit, since I have a general distaste for "random guy starts up popular blogspot page and turns it into a book!" stuff. Imagine how much that must piss off a real author with something they're having a hard time publishing? Damn.

      I assure you, people who write books based on a blogs do exist!

      (Note: "real" does not mean "something that aligns with my personal preferences".)

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:Kind of douchey. by Monchanger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kind of? More like supremely...

      The sign, a National Historic Landmark

      Really? Is anyone stupid enough to believe a sign could be a national historic landmark?

      No, genius. The sign is attached to the actual landmark, which the sign is about: the Desert View Watchtower. Mary Colter, who painted the sign wasn't an artist but an architect. Facts kind of matter, even when they're about grammar nazis.

      Is it stupid to do their thing on a sign with actual importance? Duh... The thing is nobody but you assumes they did that knowing it wasn't just a poorly-written sign produced by the park service.

    10. Re:Kind of douchey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone said below:

      Like it or not, I can attest to the fact that I often mentally judge someone by their speech if I am talking to them, or by their spelling and punctuation if I am reading their writing.

      That a sign with so many glaringly obvious spelling and grammar errors was left to stand for 60 years at a historical landmark confirms everything I've ever thought about you 'mericans.

    11. Re:Kind of douchey. by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Is anyone stupid enough to believe a sign could be a national historic landmark?

      I dunno. A sign, hand-painted 60 years ago by the architect who designed the landmark seems worthy of preservation itself.

      The thing is nobody but you assumes they did that knowing it wasn't just a poorly-written sign produced by the park service.

      Not knowing doesn't reduce the impact of their vandalism.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Kind of douchey. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Why on earth is grammar trolling considered legitimate? It's one thing to expect a book to be properly spelled, but to grammar and spell check posts on places like this or in general just says one thing about the person. They need to get sexed up and badly. Perhaps we should start a fund to send them to the Netherlands to get laid.

    13. Re:Kind of douchey. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Collating a bunch of content you didn't create (say, the kind of stuff people send in to Post Secret, as an example) doesn't make you an author any more than there is an "author" of the Yellow Pages.

      Granted, these guys didn't merely collate a bunch of crap and slam it together in a coffee table book. Having not read the book, but only some of the excerpts, it appears that they wrote about going out and doing this innocuous crap. I guess that's a little better, but still . . . meh.

    14. Re:Kind of douchey. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      That's what I always say to people when I correct their spelling or grammar. They still say "no, you're just being a douche bag". And the truth is that like most people who are annoyed by poor grammar, I am being kind of a douche bag when I do that. Otherwise I would just shut the hell up and leave the corrections for incidents more important than email, IM chats, or informal conversations.

      These guys are barely a step above "local man decides to walk across the country on foot to raise awareness for Scrabble and Yahtzee". It just rubs me of this new wave of distasteful stunting.

    15. Re:Kind of douchey. by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Worth of preservation does not come close to being appropriate of designation of a national landmark. I've got a collection of a bunch of crap from my childhood which the public has no interest in preserving. Likewise, the sign does not command national significance.

      Yes the impact is the same, for which they went to court. That's not my point. The piss-poor journalist you blindly quoted who made silly assumptions about their intent was my problem.

      It's called "perspective". Get some. Please.

    16. Re:Kind of douchey. by swillden · · Score: 1

      I've got a collection of a bunch of crap from my childhood which the public has no interest in preserving. Likewise, the sign does not command national significance.

      You really think your personal childhood crap equates to a hand-lettered sign by the architect of the national landmark?

      I'm a member of the public, and I think we have significant interest in preserving that sign as part of the landmark.

      The piss-poor journalist you blindly quoted who made silly assumptions about their intent was my problem.

      Ummm, I didn't quote any journalist. Are you confusing me with MarkGriz, perhaps?

      It's called "perspective". Get some. Please.

      I will not dignify that.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Kind of douchey. by Monchanger · · Score: 0

      You really think your personal childhood crap equates to a hand-lettered sign by the architect of the national landmark?

      No. Read it again to see that I was using an example of something that the general public should have no interest in, regardless of my caring for my junk. Don't assume I'm an idiot just because you can't read or debate.

      Are you confusing me with MarkGriz, perhaps?

      Yeah, him, fine, whatever, doesn't matter. You seemed to be defending his position which I argued against. Answer the point, ignore it, or butt out. I don't care what your name is, nor his. It's not important to the discussion. If you've nothing useful to add, don't.

      I will not dignify that.

      Whatever. Be snobbish all you want. You still display a lack of it.

    18. Re:Kind of douchey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Is anyone stupid enough to believe a sign could be a national historic landmark?

      Why not? If you believe that paintings can be important, why not signs, too? Not all signs will be, of course, but I see no reason why no sign could ever possibly be a historic landmark. (Unless you want to argue for a narrow definition of "landmark" that excludes man-made objects, but the sign could still be an important historic mark, then.)

    19. Re:Kind of douchey. by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      I loved this line from the article you linked (in reference to Jeff Deck's site): -

      His Web site now contains only a cryptic message: "I write. I also edit. Perhaps I could be of some service to you."

      If the author of the article finds that cryptic, perhaps he should retire from journalism.

    20. Re:Kind of douchey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English has the worst correspondence between our written language and our spoken language of any language. Think of how many ways each letter can be pronounced, and how many ways each sound can be spelled. Its just not normal for a language to be this disorganized in this way. spelling and pronunciation in english is a matter of obsessive memorization of unique or nearly unique examples. Anyone who is obsessed with spelling, or thinks that incorrect english spelling reflects on anyones intelligence, is a moron. Until we start to reasonably rationalize our spelling/pronunciation "rules", we should give everyone a huge break. as long as the meaning is conveyed accurately, who cares? (im a good speller, and i dont like seeing misspelled words, but i keep it to myself unless helping my wife with a resume).

    21. Re:Kind of douchey. by swillden · · Score: 1

      You really think your personal childhood crap equates to a hand-lettered sign by the architect of the national landmark?

      No. Read it again to see that I was using an example of something that the general public should have no interest in, regardless of my caring for my junk.

      You brought up an example that the public clearly has no interest in so that you could argue against an example in which the public clearly does have an interest?

      Very effective.

      Are you confusing me with MarkGriz, perhaps?

      Yeah, him, fine, whatever, doesn't matter. You seemed to be defending his position which I argued against. Answer the point, ignore it, or butt out. I don't care what your name is, nor his. It's not important to the discussion.

      The point is that you were attacking me (rather aggressively) over a point I never supported or addressed. If you'd like, I can start lambasting you for things you never said.

      I'm sorry if you find this logic too complex to follow.

      That said, if you'd like to discuss the article, please do. Other than mis-describing the architect as an artist, what egregious errors lead you to consider the journalist "piss-poor"? The reason that particular error isn't relevant is because it's not an error. Mary Colter was an artist as well as an architect. Google turns up several references to her art works, as well as the fact that she attended an art school and taught art. For that matter, good architecture is art.

      So, to recap, you were annoyed at one non-error in the article, used a weak and pointless analogy to buttress your unsupportable notion that the sign in question wasn't worth protection, and figured if you were aggressive and obnoxious enough about it no one would notice the gaping holes in your arguments.

      Is that what you call perspective?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    22. Re:Kind of douchey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a rather crummy sign anyway, easy to mistake for something knocked together on the cheep.

  6. Two from around Richmond by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    A local Long John Silver's had "Dungeonous" crabs for sale, and a local McDonald's has a cream "dispener". I've given up on trying to remember them all. Hand-written signs and those plastic letter signs are usually great places to find outrageous (and sometimes hilarious) errors.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:Two from around Richmond by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      A local Long John Silver's had "Dungeonous" crabs for sale.

      To be fair, it was probably "krab"

    2. Re:Two from around Richmond by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      >>Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

      I have the opposite problem: there are hundreds of words that I've read and known that I can't be sure that I properly pronounce.

      --
      --Jim (me)
    3. Re:Two from around Richmond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that's bad. The McDonalds in my area has
      la servilleta written on the napkin dispensers and the place to put the trash is spelled basura. I don't think the employees can understand me either. Here is my order process. I say I'll take a number 1, they mumble something and then I say "Yes". That gets me menu option 1 and supersized. Once I got the regular size and a small apple pie so they must switch up that second question on occasion to fool people.

    4. Re:Two from around Richmond by Chees0rz · · Score: 1

      Try growing up in Maine. I do NOT have a Maine accent (adding/dropping Rs to the ends of words) in my normal speech patterns but I have been confused on some words I've never read.

      For instance-
      Acadia national park...
      My mom always said "Arcadier," so my Maine->English filter figured it was "Arcadia." Nope.

    5. Re:Two from around Richmond by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      A local Amigos is advertising a food item for .99 cents. I should order one, give them a penny, and ask for a 1/100-of-a-cent-cash-value coupon in change.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    6. Re:Two from around Richmond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a science teacher in seacoast NH that talked about toasting mashmellers (marshmallows) over a camp fire. Somehow Lisa becomes Leaser, and yeah becomes year.

    7. Re:Two from around Richmond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For instance- Acadia national park... My mom always said "Arcadier," so my Maine->English filter figured it was "Arcadia." Nope.

      In defense of your mom, it's near-impossible to pronounce anything correctly when you have a dick in your mouth. And I should know -- I frequently have your mom's dick and my mouth and find myself not being able to appropriately pronounce a damned thing.

    8. Re:Two from around Richmond by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      PS - A local Italian restaurant features "Child Spaghetti" on their menu.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    9. Re:Two from around Richmond by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Love this one. They are the same folk who would probably advertise their used 37' TV on Craigslist for some ridiculously low price for an appliance that needs its own building, then try to pawn something only 3-4' in diagonal off on you.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    10. Re:Two from around Richmond by easyTree · · Score: 1

      A local Amigos is advertising a food item for .99 cents. I should order one, give them a penny, and ask for a 1/100-of-a-cent-cash-value coupon in change.

      Please take a head-mounted video recorder with you :-)

  7. jamie writes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jamie writes...

    No, jaime plagiarizes. That's the first damn sentences of the linked article, for chrissake!

    1. Re:jamie writes... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      You do realize every story currently on the front page is just a quote-box with text taken directly from the article in question?

    2. Re:jamie writes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it's taken directly from the article, it should be clearly attributed as such. If it says, "jaimee writes", then it's attributed to jaimee, and is plagiarism. Repeated plagiarism is still plagiarism.

      Besides, it's not true that all articles are directly stolen text - sometimes it's the submitter's description of what the article says, instead.

    3. Re:jamie writes... by richdun · · Score: 1

      No, jaime plagiarizes.

      If it says, "jaimee writes", then it's attributed to jaimee, and is plagiarism.

      I need an irony check on aisle 3.

    4. Re:jamie writes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No irony, as far as I can tell. Attribution is inocrrect. The assumption is that Jaime is not the person who wroet the original article, but someone who submitted the article to /. .

  8. should pay for that pro spell check and not use th by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    should of payed for that pro spell check and not use the free build in one.

  9. Kudos to them by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see someone put their Asperger Syndrome to use for a noble purpose.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Kudos to them by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could try something productive then. Like brewing beer, or making a new form of paper.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  10. Sigh... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Language is about communication, it's not about the RULES of grammar. Yes, we have arbitrarily decided rules as to what gets an apostrophe and how things are spelled and so on...failing to follow this rule or that at any given time doesn't often hinder the communication. If someone says to me "pimipin' ain't easy", I get what they said. I don' t need them make sure they put the "g" on the end or use "isn't" instead of "ain't". Thanks to my abhorently abusive Catholic school education, I still cringe when I see someone's written "Thank's for shopping at our store's!", but I don't feel the need to correct them. That would just be douchey. You know...like these two guys.

    --
    Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
    http://www.workorspoon.com
    1. Re:Sigh... by h4rr4r · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Even douchier is to complain about someone complaining about bad grammar/spelling.

    2. Re:Sigh... by flerchin · · Score: 3, Funny

      What is pimiping?

      --
      --why?
    3. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that makes you king douche then? Until someone comes along and complains about your post I guess (which you'll note I explicitly am not).

    4. Re:Sigh... by FozE_Bear · · Score: 1

      I must disagree. The problem is that correct usage of the English language is rarely misunderstood. consider the missing comma here: "Mary had freckles on her but we liked her anyway." Without the comma, one could infer that Mary's ass was speckled. Also, the "Pimpin'" remark you speak of was completely correct in grammar and use of abbreviation.

    5. Re:Sigh... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Funny

      but it's totally ok to complain about someone who complains about someone who complains about bad grammar.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    6. Re:Sigh... by putch · · Score: 1

      That inference could be made with or without the comma. If Mary has freckles on her face then they are probably on her buttocks too. But, I'm not sure what her donkey's coat has to do with anything.

      --
      just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
    7. Re:Sigh... by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1
      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    8. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...ah, spelling and grammar are without merit or purpose, and education is 'abusive'. ...and this is "insightful?" This, from someone who actually uses a word such as "douchey"?

    9. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he is complaining by calling out the douchedness of the previous post then you must also be complaining by calling him a king douche you double king douche you

    10. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It's about communication but when spelling and grammar are so bad that they distract it's time to get out the red pen. I would also say that anything that is going to be for public viewing needs to be proofed. Not doing so makes it look very unprofessional.

    11. Re:Sigh... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Yo dawg! I herd you liek complaining, so I'm complaining about your complaint...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    12. Re:Sigh... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Well yeah... It's kind of like a double... or... triple negative... I think...

    13. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's douches all the way down.

    14. Re:Sigh... by mordejai · · Score: 1

      You lost me, which one was wrong again?

    15. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to say, but it's indeed true:
      "Douchey" is exclusively an adjective attributable to misapplication of the word, "douchey". That being, to describe anything other than the use of the word, "douchey."

      Thus, it was douchey to say they were correcting bad grammar.
      But it's not douchey to point-out you were being douchey in misapplying douchey as to describe their act.

    16. Re:Sigh... by unitron · · Score: 1

      It's what pimips do, of course!

      But they tend not to pronounce the "g" on the end.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    17. Re:Sigh... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Language is about communication, it's not about the RULES of grammar. Yes, we have arbitrarily decided rules as to what gets an apostrophe and how things are spelled and so on...failing to follow this rule or that at any given time doesn't often hinder the communication.

      Actually, failing to follow the defined rules makes communication harder if not impossible. For several different reasons.
      1) Non-fluent non-native speakers/readers - these will have difficulties figuring out, just what the hell you're trying to say
      2) Deaf people who've never heard words pronounced. They cannot just 'read out' a sentence to try to coax meaning out of something that makes no sense.

      I even come packing with a great example. I read the following sentence in a short story, posted somewhere on the internet:

      Kind Henry VIII was so angry he through a thrown threw a widow.

      Now, you and I can figure out what this is supposed to be.

      King Henry VIII was so angry he threw a throne through a window.

      Now imagine that you are deaf. You have no idea what words are heterographs. Some things are somewhat obvious, though you cannot be sure, as the context is non-nonsensical.

      King Henry VIII was so angry that he through a thrown threw a widow.

      This is fairly likely to be correct, as 'threw a widow' (i.e. forcibly moved a widow in such a fashion, that her feet left the ground) makes it unlikely that we're talking about the Kind Henry VIII

      But it still makes absolutely no sense, if you do know not the correct pronunciation of the words - meaning you cannot communicate that sentence to deaf people who have never heard the language spoken nor to people who aren't fluent in English.

      Hell, even if you speak fluent English, you still have to run this past an internal and concious filter. This means that instead of reading this at your normal speed (which for me is around 90 paperback pages an hour), you have to slow way the fuck down.

      Essentially you're now stuck doing 3 mph on an otherwise empty freeway, because some idiot has decided to block up all lanes along with his friends. Because, hey - they aren't in a hurry, and it's their right to use the road, so everybody else should just calm the fuck down or get off the road.

      And if you don't believe the fluency part ... my father still calls Google for Goggle, and Microsoft Office for Microsoft Officy (or something like that).

      You show him a headline saying "Frugal Google" and he won't ever know, that this is a rather catchy headline. He doesn't know why http://www.google.com/products used to be called Froogle. And yes, he called it Froggle.

  11. Life imitates art by Kelson · · Score: 1

    When I was in college in the mid-1990s, I had a clipped-out newspaper cartoon on my bulletin board, showing a group of people correcting signs, muttering things like "I before E!" and "It's Brussels Sprouts, not Brussel Sprouts!". I can't remember what comic strip it was, but the panel was captioned, "Roving Gangs of Rogue Proofreaders."

    1. Re:Life imitates art by JTsyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably Farside.

    2. Re:Life imitates art by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Why do they say "I before E, except after C"? Their weird.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Life imitates art by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You're missing the second half.

      "Except after 'C' or in the sound 'A' as in 'neighbor' or 'weigh'.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Life imitates art by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Or when the word is weird, species, science, sufficient, ancient, society, seize, theism, protein, sovereignty, foreign, feisty, kaleidoscope, being, rottweiler, keister, leisure, seize, caffeine.....

    5. Re:Life imitates art by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Albeit possible to find examples that violate either half, perhaps it should be forfeited entirely.

      Being an atheist foreigner on Slashdot, I just had to out-pedant you. Please enjoy this post at your leisure. ;)

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Life imitates art by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know, I left off the third half, where the specific exceptions are listed.

      Of note: If you use a bad Scottish accent, most of those exceptions disappear.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Life imitates art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Life imitates art by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Probably Farside.

      It's certainly the right kind of humor, but I think it was something else. Maybe "Close to Home?"

  12. the english language is better off with out gramma by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0

    the English language is better off with out all the grammar stuff.

    I thing some of it is going a little to far.

  13. Wow, how much was this advertisement? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    Is NPR accepting ads now? At first I thought this was idle news, until I read "In 2 1/2 months, Herson and Deck traveled the perimeter of the country..."

    Perimeter of the US in 2 1/2 months? That takes some $$$$$ to do that and 2 1/2 month without a day job... and here's how they did it, by writing a book, The Great Typo Hunt

    A book about traveling the country and correcting signs. Must be an amazing read, what's their next book, the Amazing Highway Trash Cleanup?

    Think I'll just wait for the movie like the Twilight series, hope they sparkle in the sunlight too

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    1. Re:Wow, how much was this advertisement? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Is NPR accepting ads now?

      They have for decades. They and others have interviewed authors flogging books for longer yet.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Wow, how much was this advertisement? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      it was presented as if two guys went on this hunt for typos, when really they went on a hunt to sell a book.

      I think my "beef" should be clear, I don't read slashdot articles so I can be told to "buy the book", and I especially don't enjoy being mislead into thinking it's a ordinary news story when really it's a trap to sell a book.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  14. Jackboots A' Clicking by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

    This is one dude where I ANAL has nothing to do with lawyers.

    --
    Anybody want a peanut?
  15. youryou'retheirtherethey're by precariousgray · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Note: it's not a typo if the error was borne of ignorance.

    --
    not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    1. Re:youryou'retheirtherethey're by Hangeron · · Score: 1

      Just yesterday I read a forum post where some American mixed up prospective/perspective and hire/higher. A systematic error that is a shining example of cringeworthy edumacation.

    2. Re:youryou'retheirtherethey're by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And how prey tell do you know? Did I use prey instead of pray to be cute or was it a typo? Or did I just not know any better? Without the continuation of my post you'd have no fucking way of knowing.

    3. Re:youryou'retheirtherethey're by precariousgray · · Score: 1

      You used it to be cute, because you're insinuating that those who confuse homophones which occupy entirely separate parts of speech are, in reality, English language superstar geniuses who are just too cool and ahead of the curve to follow the rules.

      Which is a blatantly laughable notion.

      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    4. Re:youryou'retheirtherethey're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a maroon either way.

  16. Sounds more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretentious douchebag hits the road in an attempt to be a pretentious douchebag.

  17. Re:should pay for that pro spell check and not use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should of payed for that pro spell check and not use the free build in one.

    Maybe you should have too... I think "built in" would be the term you were looking for.

  18. Signs dont use punctuation for a reason by Culture20 · · Score: 0

    Ever notice how signs dont use punctuation
    They use ALL CAPS instead of exclamation points unless there is !DANGER! then they over use them
    Adding a comma can detract from the jarring nature of a sign


    /// No Step ///

  19. Grammar Nazi by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    Godwin's Law invoked!

    1. Re:Grammar Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. Just mentioning Nazis, Hitler, etc., does not invoke the law.

    2. Re:Grammar Nazi by Kredal · · Score: 1

      You know who else liked invoking laws?

      That's right.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  20. Kinda agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just wish that people who don't know how to use apostrophes just wouldn't bother with them. Instead they go around putting apostrophes on every word that ends with "s".

    It's actually pretty rare that a word needs an apostrophe in it unless it's a conjunction. But nonetheless it seems like any time a word is pluralized or made a possessive, they stick one in there.

    This is not a big deal on silly stuff only one person will see and even they will only see it once like for emails and forum posts on the interwebs, but Christ people, if it's going to be on huge signs everywhere around your workplace for the next 10 to 20 years, use the fucking rules! Look them up if you have to!

    1. Re:Kinda agree by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      But how else would they tell us that they have "Free!!! DVD's for Sale!"?

      Didn't the new rules just declare that an apostrophe meant, "Look out, an 'S' is coming," anyway?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  21. Re:the english language is better off with out gra by maxume · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't be a language if it didn't have a grammar.

    Tiresome discussion of rigid formal rules is fairly unnecessary.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  22. repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a repeat story from about 2 years or so ago.
    The only reason for this repeat, is an attempt to garner attention for their book.

  23. Re:should pay for that pro spell check and not use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here that whooshing sound? its four yew.

  24. What? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Whee shud trie too maike et ezy four othars too reed wat wee right. Ewe mite trie too bee moor tolarrient off spealing erors!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  25. Grammer Nazis by sponga · · Score: 1

    "Grammer Nazis.... I hate these guys"

    1. Re:Grammer Nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll probably hate the punctuation Nazis too.

    2. Re:Grammer Nazis by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Especially Illinois Grammar Nazis.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  26. You ain't seen nothing... by sydneyfong · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://imgur.com/4R1D4

    Welcome to China.

    A more accurate translation would be "dry fried duck", but I suppose there's a more elegant translation.

    ---

    http://blog-imgs-38.fc2.com/o/t/t/ottovon/_20gb601.jpg
    Welcome to Hong Kong -- this one actually made it to local news headlines for its hilarity.

    [ Bold/top line is original text, middle line is google's translations (which sucks), and bottom is what it really means ]

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
    1. Re:You ain't seen nothing... by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      Your 2nd link came up with a 404.

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    2. Re:You ain't seen nothing... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Maybe referrer problem. Try copy and pasting manually.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    3. Re:You ain't seen nothing... by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      That did the trick. Quite funny.

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  27. How to reach them by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    How do we reach these guys? A place called "Tobys Banquet's" has been bugging me for years.

    I don't even consider myself a stickler for grammar.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:How to reach them by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 4, Funny

      My personal favourite was at a fast food Chinese place. The sign? "No. MSG"

      I took that to mean that if you asked a question the answer would be "No." Followed by "MSG"

      Eg. "Do you use healthy preservatives in your food?" "No. MSG"

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    2. Re:How to reach them by sponga · · Score: 1

      The best one were some Mexican people who took over a 'Friend Chicken' restaurant in like the real ghetto part of East LA.
      One of their signs they added basically said something to the effect "Sur(south)negroe(black) pollo(chicken)", sure enough next morning on the news there were black community leaders out there protesting it.

      I think some of the best ones are in foreign countries and I remember a viral post going around showing all these Chinese misspelled names.

    3. Re:How to reach them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of Lionel Hutz' business card.

      WORKS ON CONTINGENCY
      NO MONEY DOWN

      With, of course, some punctuation added with a pen:

      WORKS ON CONTINGENCY?
      NO, MONEY DOWN!

    4. Re:How to reach them by ekgringo · · Score: 1

      I believe the viral post you mentioned refers to http://engrish.com/ although they are not limited to Chinese.

    5. Re:How to reach them by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "Walking Special" sign seen at a local pizza restaurant. Presumably someone wanted to write, "walk-in special" but forgot the hyphen. Then someone else came along and noticed the error and added the 'g'.

    6. Re:How to reach them by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      In a collection of badly translated English signs in China, this one should be at the very top:
      http://www.vincentchow.net/2340/chinese-restaurant-name-translate-server-error

    7. Re:How to reach them by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

      How well do you speak Chinese?

      Smug git.

    8. Re:How to reach them by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      Very well, I learned from Firefly.

      BUN tyen-shung duh ee-DWAY-RO

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    9. Re:How to reach them by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That reminds me. Am I the only one who is irritated by those signs that boldly claim “War is not the answer”? The answer to what? Am I the only one who spends the next 5 minutes thinking of questions to which war is the answer?

      Ex.

      What 3-letter English word begins with W and ends with R?
      What is “raw” spelled backward?
      What word immediately precedes “warble” in the standard Webster’s English dictionary?
      What does the JNE assembly-language opcode become after applying the ROT-13 encoding scheme?
      etc.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  28. Re:should pay for that pro spell check and not use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ditto.

  29. New York or... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    anywhere with a big non-English speaking population will turn up a lot of these errors. The thing that always baffled me was that in the case of such signage as awnings and shop signs, how does the sign make it all the way to being attached to the shop without someone involved noticing the error? I have stopped paying attention to these errors for the most part because there are just so many of them. Occasionally I'll come across one that is really funny but most of the time it is just annoying and a bit said.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
    1. Re:New York or... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      annoying and a bit said.

      No, they are signs, and therefore not usually verbally expressed. ;)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:New York or... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      SAD! Slurry. Taht was a tie poo.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  30. Not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  31. Don't let him near the consitution by jewishbaconzombies · · Score: 1

    He'd be there all day replacing the letter F with S's.

    Mao would love this guy. George Orwell too.

  32. Re:the english language is better off with out gra by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    yew mite even say a bridge two far

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  33. Re:should pay for that pro spell check and not use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHOOSH!!!

  34. Isn't this a simpler issue? by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you own a sign, it's yours. You get to alter it, deface it, replace it, do whatever you want with it.

    If you don't own a sign, and don't have permission of the owner or some specific sign-maintaining authority, then altering it is an act of vandalism. Your intent is irrelevant. It's not your sign. Don't like it? Too bad. Offer the sign owner some money to replace the sign with one that is to your liking, and maybe they'll take you up on it.

    There's a really old-looking hand-carved sign at Yellowstone that talks about the dangers of getting too close to critters. IIRC it's near Old Faithful, but it's been about 10 years since I've been there, so my memory might be bad. The wood is well-weathered, the carving is pretty good, and it's obviously a matter of some effort on the part of the park service to preserve it. Unfortunately, it has a single spelling error (reversal of two letters in a word), and there are various correction marks that have been scratched and scrawled into it over the years that really ruin the look of the sign.

    If it's not yours and you haven't been put in charge of maintaining it, keep your markers and tools off it. Please.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    1. Re:Isn't this a simpler issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hand-carved sign isn't the same thing as a dollar-a-dozen sign. There's definitely a question of degree here that you're obviously choosing to ignore. Fixing a sign like the one shown in the summary is vandalism, but it doesn't matter.

    2. Re:Isn't this a simpler issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you set that word in boldface.

    3. Re:Isn't this a simpler issue? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Dumb shits like this make me want to make things that irritate them then beat the crap out of them when they trespass tying to alter it. If this does not convince such OCD cretins to mind their own business then the crippling pain will be their special friend.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    4. Re:Isn't this a simpler issue? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      There's a sign in my neighborhood that says "Dump no material whatever." Technically speaking that should be whatsoever, but without the comma or extra letters you're left to consider what they meant to say. In this part of the country people have manners so it's never been defaced and corrected. Although without any common sense it says something completely different than what they intended to say.

    5. Re:Isn't this a simpler issue? by gartenbauer · · Score: 2, Funny

      The carver must have been using the spell checker in the wood processor

    6. Re:Isn't this a simpler issue? by unitron · · Score: 1

      It's just as well that I'm out of mod points at the moment as there is no "+1, sublime" option.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    7. Re:Isn't this a simpler issue? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      If you don't own a sign, and don't have permission of the owner or some specific sign-maintaining authority, then altering it is an act of vandalism. Your intent is irrelevant. It's not your sign. Don't like it? Too bad.

      And this is exactly why he asked everyone for permission before altering things. RTFA.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  35. How come by destroygbiv · · Score: 1

    How come when someone can't speak English, I tolerate it. But when I butcher a foreign word, we spend a good minute teaching me how to pronounce it correctly. Isn't my mispronunciation just my accent? How come I'm not allowed to have an accent? Perhaps it's because I'm a racist (tongue in cheek plzzz) Oops Pow Surprise

    1. Re:How come by NetNed · · Score: 1

      I have discussed this with a Albanian speaking person where I was SO close in pronunciation that it would be hard for most to tell the difference, but most the Albanian that worked in this place would be like "What? I don't understand what you are saying." If they do it more then once to me, I constantly ask them to repeat themselves till they get it.

  36. Re:the english language is better off with out gra by jimicus · · Score: 1

    There's no such thing as rigid formal rules with any language that's in common use. Words fall in and out of use all the time - maybe the thing to which they refer becomes obsolete, maybe some other word finds favour instead - and accepted grammar changes all the time.

    "Fuck", for instance, has not always been considered rude, and quite a few UK towns used to have roads called "Grope Cunt Lane". On a rather less coarse note, Bryson notes in "Mother Tongue" that the English language has changed quite a bit since the early days of the US - there's some evidence to suggest that the early immigrants spoke somewhat like Yosemite Sam. And when was the last time you hailed a hansom?

  37. Grammar Prescriptivism is Pre-Modern by ATrask · · Score: 1

    Trying to make a language uniform is tantamount to removing diversity for the sake of consistency. I'm not saying that grammar is not important, but rather what they are doing assumes that they're helping. I don't think that they've proved that what they're doing has intrinsic value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Problems

  38. At the cost of efficiency by Timothy+Chu · · Score: 1

    Communication will work, but at the cost of lowered efficiency. Typos and the lack of clarity in a sentence will force most careful readers to backtrack and reread to ensure it wasn't an error on the reader's part. To me, it's a little like driving with a dirty windshield. Sure, it's doable, but its nonetheless distracting.
    On the net, I can accept that the rules of grammar are as variable as the backgrounds of the people writing and reading it. In print, or on permanent signage, I'm not so forgiving.

  39. Website gone?? by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm looking for the cited 'TEAL' website, and everything I click on leads me to their book. I don't give a crap about the book, I just want to see photos of their work.

  40. Re:Communication by Phrogman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like it or not, I can attest to the fact that I often mentally judge someone by their speech if I am talking to them, or by their spelling and punctuation if I am reading their writing. I am sure I am hardly alone. If they lack the ability to compose a coherent sentence, or the decency to use a spell checker, and have no concept of grammatical formations, then I am inclined to judge them as uneducated, ignorant or ill-informed, and I tend to disregard whatever it was that they were trying to communicate. Now, I grant you that sometimes one might type "Pimpin' ain't easy" for the effect - but the intention is to imply someone who is a lower-class, uneducated and possibly not very bright individual. If you regularly communicate in a similar style, you will look equally lower-class, uneducated and possibly not very bright. In other words, its a matter of communication. If you communicate poorly, you tend to be ignored, and in my opinion whatever you have to say matters less.

    If I am reading forum posts and I come across a post that is utterly incoherent, misspelled, or contains a lot of grammatical errors, I skip it. That person has failed to get whatever point they were trying to make across to me at least, and likely others. If you want to be given attention, and your opinions to be given any consideration, learn to communicate using proper grammar, spelling etc. Failure to do so simply makes you look like an idiot.

    Now, unleash the Grammar Nazis to let me know where I have erred in my post. I tried to be correct throughout, but I am sure I have made at least one mistake :)

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  41. Is it.. by NetNed · · Score: 1

    Is it just like the internet where if you have one spelling error in your posting, no matter how poignant, it has no meaning because the grammar police rip you a new one?

    "Yield to trian? Look they spelled train wron......... KAPOW!!!!!"


    Hopefully someone will correct my spelling of "kapow" to the more accepted Batman & Robin English Oxford Dictionary spelling.

  42. Thank you by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

    Tpyos are a pet peeve of mine.

    1. Re:Thank you by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      No one cares. No one. Except you. Trust me.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Thank you by unitron · · Score: 1

      What about how he feels about typos? Does anyone care about that?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  43. Even worse is when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...some jackoff with less than ten items gets into the NORMAL LANE!!!!

    1. Re:Even worse is when... by unitron · · Score: 1

      Even worse is when... (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wed Aug 11, '10 02:44 PM (#33218838)
      ...some jackoff with less than ten items gets into the NORMAL LANE!!!!

      Just think how infuriating it would be if he had fewer than ten items.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  44. So he's a loser ... moving on ... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Really, all this does is shows us how much of a loser the guy is. Just because he thinks its better his way doesn't make him right or it true. He's a criminal fucking with other peoples property without consent. Hopefully he'll get some real jail time somewhere in the near future to get it through his thick, retarded head that his behavior is unacceptable.

    I'd like to see him get caught doing it in Texas where far less questions are asked after you shoot him. (Police Officer) Was this douche bag commiting a crime against you sir when you shot him in the back? (Sign owner) yep, painting my sign without my ask'n (Police Officer) Good enough for me, have a nice evening, we'll clean it up for you.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:So he's a loser ... moving on ... by hyades1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I doubt he'll be going to Texas. There's so many retards there, his only hope would be to look for the occasional accurate sign and put a check mark on it.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:So he's a loser ... moving on ... by pepik_knize · · Score: 1

      There's so many retards there

      Really, there is so many retards here? That's your point?

    3. Re:So he's a loser ... moving on ... by unitron · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see him get caught doing it in Texas where far less questions are asked after you shoot him.

      Even in Texas it's far fewer questions.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    4. Re:So he's a loser ... moving on ... by hyades1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yuppers. That's my point...that there ARE so many retards where you apparently are. I'm proud of you for figuring it out. Would you like something more difficult?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  45. Grammer Nazis don't bother me... by HiChris! · · Score: 1

    As long as they don't mess with the Juice

  46. back to SHCOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a long road ahead of them. Check out this story from today:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10936604

    Also, I hope they tell the mega store chains that WHY PAY MORE! is not punctuated properly.

  47. BS by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consider the missing comma here: "Mary had freckles on her but we liked her anyway." Without the comma, one could infer that Mary's ass was speckled.

    That's nonsense on several counts.

    1. But is spelled differently than butt.
    2. No comma is necessary in sentences like your example. By which I mean you're going to find plenty of examples of excellent writers routinely dispensing with the comma in parallel grammatical structures.
    3. If the sentence was spoken, intonation would make it quite clear what was meant. The pitch on the but would be higher than butt.
    4. Pretty much any argument about "bad grammar" that's based on the ambiguity of a constructed example sentence presented without any context where it would be used is bullshit. Context routinely disambiguates language.
    1. Re:BS by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      Better example:
      • The panda eats shoots and leaves.
      • The panda eats, shoots and leaves.

      Thank you: Eats, Shoots & Leaves:

      A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.

      'Why?' asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

      'Well, I'm a panda,' he says, at the door. 'Look it up.'

      The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. 'Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.'

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:BS by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Wait... you just said proper spelling was important to communication. Validating the GPP's point.

    3. The "eats shoots and leaves" example actually supports my point #4: "Pretty much any argument about 'bad grammar' that's based on the ambiguity of a constructed example sentence presented without any context where it would be used is bullshit. Context routinely disambiguates language."

      Why? Because the "eats shoots and leaves" joke relies on constructing an elaborate and implausible counterfactual context where (at least) the following conditions hold:

      1. There exists at least one panda who is capable of talking.
      2. This panda eats sandwiches.
      3. This very same panda has procured a firearm and ammunition.
      4. The panda knows how to fire the gun.
      5. The panda has good enough aim to hit many patrons with its shots.
      6. The panda some-damn-how is anatomically capable of not just handling the gun and shooting it, but of doing so repeatedly in quick succession with good aim.
      7. The panda is somehow aware of the contents of the wildlife manual. Oh, and he has a wildlife manual.
      8. The patrons somehow don't get the hell out of dodge when a talking panda comes into the café. (And yeah, bonus points if the panda's gun is not concealed!)

      Without setting up all that elaborate context, there is no way that anybody would possibly interpret the (incorrectly puntuated, granted) phrase "eats, shoots and leaves" in the way that the joke requires.

    4. Re:BS by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Without setting up all that elaborate context, there is no way that anybody would possibly interpret the (incorrectly punctuated, granted) phrase "eats, shoots and leaves" in the way that the joke requires.

      To the contrary, the punctuation helps impart and/or define the interpretation/meaning - that's its purpose. Perhaps there actually are gun-toting pandas - sharks have lasers, after all.

      Precision is important to more than just humor. Context *is* important and resolves many potential conflicts, but should not be relied upon as sole arbiter. Casually, people should let (some) punctuation problems slide, but there's a place for it otherwise, and there it should be used properly - as should the context.

      As to the two grammar monkeys of the main story, it's not their place to tamper with other people's property.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. To the contrary, the punctuation helps impart and/or define the interpretation/meaning - that's its purpose. Perhaps there actually are gun-toting pandas - sharks have lasers, after all.

      So, you're reading a wildlife manual, and you reach the section on pandas--an animal that you've heard of countless times before. The manual says: "The panda is a bear-like mammal that eats, shoots and leaves." Do you conclude:

      1. That the panda is an animal that discharges firearms between its meals and departures.
      2. That the panda is an animal whose diet consists of shoots and leaves.

      No sane person concludes (1), because all their previous knowledge about pandas and mammals in general, and there is no contextual cancellation of any of that background knowledge. Yet what your "precision" riff amounts to is that, faced with that (admittedly misplaced) comma, one may reasonably disregard context and reasonably conclude (1). That's insane.

      Granted, the prohibition against a comma in that sentence is reasonable. But the reason the prohibition is reasonable cannot be that the sentence with the extraneous comma is liable to be understood as (1), because it's not. But then what the panda joke is doing is stating an invalid argument with a true conclusion and trying to get the reader to apply that argument in other cases--where it will wrongly prohibit perfectly reasonable grammatical constructions on the basis of ambiguities or misunderstandings that nobody would make. Not good.

    6. Re:BS by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Actually, the purpose of the joke is to show that punctuation matters.
      And, yes, I could be insane. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Actually, the purpose of the joke is to show that punctuation matters.

      But what is the punctuation (allegedly) doing in that joke? Resolving three ambiguities that conspire to give the sentence two very different potential readings: two lexical ambiguities (the 3sg-present verb form shoots vs. the plural noun form shoots; similar for leaves), one syntactic (shoots and leaves as a coordinate noun phrase object of eats, vs. eats, shoots and leaves as a coordinate verb phrase consisting of three verb phrases, each headed by an unmodified intransitive verb).

      So, basically, the point of the joke is that the rule matters because if you violate it, people will read the potentially ambiguous sentence as something dramatically different from what was meant (the panda shoots people!). The answer to that (other than to point out, as I've done, that people don't actually conclude that the comma means that the panda shoots people unless you guide them very carefully to that conclusion beforehand) is that potential ambiguity is commonplace in countless contexts that, by that criteria, would merit countless absurd usage prohibitions. Arnold Zwicky (very notable linguist) has an interesting blog post making this argument at more length, with other examples.

    8. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, really? We're picking on spelling of the word, "but?"

      Just don't get me started on use of the word, "hung."

      As in, "He was hung at nigh noon."

      Because, to say that, I suppose one is implying he had a penisectomy at one o'clock, and thus was no longer hung?

      Or maybe he was hanged by the neck until dead?

    9. Re:BS by unitron · · Score: 1

      But is spelled differently than butt.

      When things differ, they differ from one another.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    10. Re:BS by unitron · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. Who's going to grant a panda a concealed-carry permit?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    11. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's a stupid example (although our context is written language, so the spoken intonation is irrelevant)

      Better ones:

      Slow, children crossing.
      Look at that huge, hot dog!
      Eat here, and get gas.
      Go, get him doctors.
      After we left, Grandma, Mum and I skipped about in the park. (-v- "After we left Grandma, Mum and I skipped about in the park.")

      All from Lynne Truss' illustrated guide to why commas do matter.

      Why, commas do matter!

    12. Re:BS by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Depends. Is he white with black markings, or black with white markings?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    13. Re:BS by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the bastardized reading of it would be a run-on sentence.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    14. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much any argument about "bad grammar" that's based on the ambiguity of a constructed example sentence presented without any context where it would be used is bullshit. Context routinely disambiguates language.

      This.

      Language by its nature has ambiguities. Not to mention that "correct" grammar and spelling changes over time and locality. After all "color" should be "colour" right; "centre" should be "center", oh wait, no thats the other way around.

      Without context there is no such thing as the one true correct grammar. To put it another way: grammaticians disagree.

      Of course I'm not making the claim that grammar isn't important, just that arguing about the minutiae is pointless, for the sake of good communication the speaker/writer needs to stick to the conventions of their audience, and the listener needs to be willing to interpret from the context, this last action is referred to as "reading".

      Arguing about the spelling/grammar is often a signal that the content has escaped the reader :-)

  48. Bullshit. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Funny

    And, most people fail to realize that this is a problem because the word should be "fewer" not "less".

    So, come on, explain to my why this is (allegedly) so. Explanations that won't be accepted:

    • Because some dude made up a rule that says so.
    • Any explanation that consists of simply restating the rule in question in complicated and impressive-sounding language that may or may not betray the fact that the explainer has never been to a Linguistics 101 course.
    1. Re:Bullshit. by lgw · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're actually interested: fewer relates to countable nouns, less to uncountable. Less water, fewer glasses. "Less glasses" sounds as wrong as "fewer water".

      Of course, few people read edited prose these days, and so most lack the "ear" for poor usage. It will be an odd time for language, with almost everyone literate but not reading books.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Bullshit. by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      So, come on, explain to my why this is (allegedly) so.

      "Fewer" is to refer to a quantity that can be counted or is discrete ("fewer stones") while "less" is to refer to a quantity that can't easily be counted or is continuous ("less water"). Compare "less sugar" to "fewer sugar granules."

      --

    3. Re:Bullshit. by adonoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it's convention. Why do we use the word "water" to mean that liquidy stuff you find in lakes? Why does "the" refer to a specific instance of an entity and "a" applies to any given instance of an entity? Words have meanings because that's how language works. We use "less" to indicate relative positions on a continuous scale. We use "fewer" to indicate relative positions on a discrete scale. Why? Because that's how it's been done since the 12th century. On the other, English in particular is a very fluid language - use whichever word you please. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.

    4. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reason the "one less car" stickers on bikes annoy me. The number of cars is countable.

    5. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! My years of Math and CS education is destroying my life! We've been using "less" for countable items, wtf???

    6. Re:Bullshit. by phiwum · · Score: 1

      If you're actually interested: fewer relates to countable nouns, less to uncountable. Less water, fewer glasses. "Less glasses" sounds as wrong as "fewer water".

      Of course, few people read edited prose these days, and so most lack the "ear" for poor usage. It will be an odd time for language, with almost everyone literate but not reading books.

      Unfortunately for pedants like us, this is just not historically so. The word "less" has applied to countable objects from the beginning. Only relatively recently (1770, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less).

      While I share your pet peeve over less/fewer, we have to admit that this rule was arbitrarily added to the conventions. It's not that people began breaking a rule formerly honored — it's that the rule was made up later.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
  49. Re:should pay for that pro spell check and not use by Megane · · Score: 1

    Their's werse things then that.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  50. The dude in the picture... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Is he the test tube baby of David Schwimmer and Jack from Lost?

    Would have been nice to known their itinerary and plant bad signs in their path. Maybe lead them into Mexico and one of the drug cartel territories. Oh, what fun would ensue!

  51. I did my part in this, unknowingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At a local supermarket, there was a table with fruit and a sign reading "Kids Table" or some such. One day I tore a triangular corner off a white label that you put on bulk items, and put it after the 's'. It looks perfect and hasn't been removed in the weeks since. I hope someone there got a chuckle that an anonymous shopper corrected their grammatical error.

  52. Vandals? by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

    IMHO, these guys are out for a cheap thrill, a book deal and dangerous.

    Check this link:
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/08/22/men_banned_from_national_parks_after_vandalism/

    Here's an excerpt:
    "Jeff Michael Deck of Somerville, and Benjamin Douglas Herson, of Virginia Beach, Va., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Flagstaff after damaging a rare, hand-painted sign in Grand Canyon National Park.

    They were sentenced to a year's probation, during which they cannot enter any national park, and were ordered to pay restitution.

    Authorities said Deck and Herson, both 28, toured the United States from March to May, wiping out errors on government and private signs.

    While at Desert View Watchtower on the South Rim on March 28, they were accused of using a whiteout product and a permanent marker to deface a sign that's a National Historic Landmark."

  53. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    borrrrrrrrrrrring (sp?)

  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. i don't understand the point by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    as long as the meaning is communicated, who cares?

    nitpicking about arcane redundant rules of the english language is bizarre to me

    my theory is that for grammar nazis, there is some sort of mental condition where a sort of extreme cognitive dissonance results when they see a grammar violation, and they simply can't function unless it is corrected

    it's really weird to me, it's some sort of brittleness of mind,a handicap

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i don't understand the point by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      For a sign, I don't get it. For anything else? It looks atrocious! If you're trying to convey a point to me with writing, and you cannot follow standard grammatical rules for doing so, it just makes you look like a dolt. You know the rules exist, yet chose not to follow them. So, now, how can I be fully sure that your point, even if still clear, is valid or that your argument is sound? You didn't pay attention to the EASY part, that is, writing your ideas down, how do I know you got the hard part - creating said ideas - right?

  59. Re:Communication by Tom+Arneberg · · Score: 1
    > ...let me know where I have erred in my post

    Okay, I'll bite. You wrote this:

    > In other words, its a matter of communication.

    The "its" in that sentence is a contraction of "it is," so it should be "it's" (i.e., it needs an apostrophe).

    (Confession: I suffer from the same malady as the book authors -- typos and punctuation errors drive me nuts.)

  60. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  61. Re:Communication by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

    I can't find a source anymore, but I recall hearing that good writing is strongly correlated with high intelligence. Maybe your evaluation is not as unreasonable as you suppose.

  62. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  63. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I am sure I have made at least one mistake :)

    Well, everyone does, even you :)

    its a matter of communication

    But I think there is a big difference between a comment you post on Slashdot and a sign, even more so if you want to sell something.

  64. Standard spelling/grammar is an elitist conspiracu by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Languages evolve by, among other things, useful "mistakes" that are adopted by the speakers and writers - with notable exceptions (such as Latin, which is no longer spoken as an L1, or French, which has a standards body and for which speaking "incorrectly" is a crime, with fines, in France).

    The English language was an evolving language as of the American Revolution. But beginning about then, some people tried to standardize it.

    Of course they standardized the way it was spoken on the East Coast (but added a couple rules borrowed from Latin - such as no trailing prepositions). Then they used propaganda and government education programs to spread their version and brand all the other regional variations as "improper", with the implication that the speakers and writers were either illiterate or stupid.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  65. Re:Communication by zindorsky · · Score: 1

    In other words, its a matter of communication.

    You forgot the apostrophe there, chief. Don't make me sick Bob on you. Oh, too late: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

    --
    If the geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is not thick.
  66. Re:Communication by JD-1027 · · Score: 1
    I don't really care, but only because you asked...

    In other words, its a matter of communication.

  67. Where's the typo? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    So where's the typo on the "Pedestrians use walks not roads" sign? A walk is " a place designed for walking" according to the dictionary. It doesn't seem like a sign should follow full grammatical sentence structure since it's supposed to be a brief message directing people on what to do. How else should they have worded the sign, while still keeping it terse and to the point? They can't say "sidewalks", because that looks like a national park sign, and not all "walks" are sidewalks. Nor can they say "trails" since not all paths are trails. Maybe they could have said "path", but is a sidewalk the same as a "path"? Maybe they could have said "Pedestrians must use pedestrian pathways, not roads" but that doubles the cost of the sign and gives very little added benefit.

    Am I missing something else that makes the sign incorrect?

    1. Re:Where's the typo? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      I think it needs a semi-colon such as...

      Pedestrians: use walks not roads"

      To clarify the subject. Or more words like you pointed out.

      Nevertheless the meaning of the sign is clear, especially realizing that a sign has limited space.

  68. How about because it's wrong? by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    ...there isn't a reason they can't use the same convention to indicate possession.

    How about because it's wrong?

    By your logic, do you spell the word "done" as dun, like bun and fun, just to rigorously adhere to convention? Or do you pronounce it as a homonym of "lone" and "phone" (oops, I mean "fone")?

    How do you conjugate the verb "to be"? I be, he bes, yesterday I bed (pronounced "beed," of course), etc.? Or do you go against convention like 99.9% of the rest of us and use its common conjugation of I am, he is, yesterday I was?

    I'm sorry, but I find your "it goes against convention!" argument completely uncompelling. Using "it's" as a possessive pronoun is just plain incorrect, just as incorrect as the above examples. The good news is that when you do it, most people know what you're talking about, just as if you typed a sentence "I be dun" instead of "I am done." The bad news is that just like typing that first sentence, you kind of look stupid when you do so.

    1. Re:How about because it's wrong? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it: "it is wrong because it is wrong."

      Brilliant.

      There are exceptions to every rule in English, the fact of the matter is there are not really any rules, only guidelines.

      How do you pluralize "dish"? "dishes". How do you pluralize "fish"? "fishes" or "fish"? The language is full of arbitrary exceptions. The general rule of thumb seems to be "if it sounds ignorant, it is wrong", but in this case both words are pronounced exactly the same. Unlike your straw-man examples, both versions are spoken exactly the same.

      Provide me with a reason it should be considered wrong. Circular logic does not impress me.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:How about because it's wrong? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Because it's far easier to get it right than endlessly attempt to justify and argue why it shouldn't be wrong. And if we can't agree on basic things like this, then what's the point in having any rules at all? You might as well take your wife out for dinosaur for your 17th wedding throw-rug on Sunflower, then sit out and watch the sky turn lunch.

      If you want to change the language, form your own English variant-speaking country to fit your own misguided sense of nationalism. We've already had our Noah Webster; we don't need another.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    3. Re:How about because it's wrong? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Unlike some languages, such as French, there is no governing academy for the English language.

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

      Get off your high horse.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    4. Re:How about because it's wrong? by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to continue writing like a six-year-old (and conveying that level of intelligence to others), then by all means, please do revel in your choice.

  69. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a grammar Nazi with a book and good PR.

  70. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  71. Whadda Dipshit.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yoo'd make sumbody a reel good secratary!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  72. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like it or not, I can attest to the fact that I often mentally judge someone by their speech if I am talking to them, or by their spelling and punctuation if I am reading their writing

    One of the dangers with this is that many people speak English as their second (or third or fourth) language. Sometimes I find that it's easier to read subtitles of someone on a documentary than listen to them speak English poorly. Their English skills, however, are not directly representative of their intellect, obviously. This is even more true for those whose primary language is one dramatically different than English (e.g. Japanese).

  73. Re:Sigh..., Good ain't is still okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I learnt that "isn't" (is not) is singular and "ain't" (are not) is plural; Hence, for him isn't right, but them ain't right. %~P

  74. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  75. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when the guy comes to your house to give you an estimate to have your roof replaced, you will consider grammar and dress more important than other credentials?

    I consider the topic the person is primarily discussing to be the indicator I use. I am talking to a roofer about his ability to put a roof on my house, not his ability to use proper grammar which has absolutely no relation.

    A friend of mine always talked about the importance of being dressed up or dressed properly and the image it implies. I understand but everyone knows that and everyone dresses up so what does that image really stand for? Conformity maybe but in indicator of character? No. Everyone does it so using that as a primary indicator is just wrong and you will be misled. You can't see people you talk to on the phone, why does them being in front of you wearing different clothes make a difference?

  76. Not really a typo by hduff · · Score: 1

    A late friend told me he always chuckled to himself whenever he read the ubiquitous disclaimer "Void Where Prohibited" and felt the urge to obey and pee in the forbidden place.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  77. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  78. Re:Communication by sanyacid · · Score: 1

    Take it easy, please. On the web forums and Internet in general there are so many people who are not native english speakers. Of course there are times when you can definitely tell that the person didn't put much thought in whatever he/she was writing, but in many cases incorrect grammar does not really tell you about writer's intellect. It takes many years of practice to become fluent in any foreign language. Most of the time learners will never become as good as the native speakers. It's a better idea to judge people more by their message, not by the form.

    So excuse me for my non-perfect english, I come from Russia, live in Finland and currently studying in Portugal. We just don't practice it in our daily lives ;)

  79. Everyday low prices Every Day! by billstewart · · Score: 1

    My wife once found a sign in a store that used both "everyday" and "every day" and used them both correctly. She was so pleased, because 95% of the signs she sees with "everyday" on them get it wrong.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Everyday low prices Every Day! by unitron · · Score: 1

      I feel reasonably certain that the sign was only grammatically correct by chance.

      Someone who actually knew and understood the difference between "everyday" and "every day" would find themselves thinking, in the middle of creating that sign, "As opposed to what? Everday low prices occasionally? Every odd-numbered day?" and be unable to continue.

      I'm very much in favor of grammatically correct advertising, but that's not always going to be enough to keep it from being stupid.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    2. Re:Everyday low prices Every Day! by billstewart · · Score: 1

      I don't remember exactly what the sign said, but it did use both terms, and probably on purpose - you have to expect that somewhere in the world there's somebody with the skill to do that, even if it's sadly rare. Probably somebody who even reads books...

      It's the parking meters in San Francisco getting that one wrong that really irk me (especially since you know you couldn't fight a parking ticket by claiming that you didn't violate what the sign actually said the rules were.)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  80. expresso and missing words by billstewart · · Score: 2, Funny

    They were just too hopped up on the caffeine to get it right the first time, and then something shiny went by.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:expresso and missing words by Random+Data · · Score: 1

      E*x*presso?!?! Get out!
      mumblemumblemumbleespressomumblemilleniumhandandshrimpmumble

    2. Re:expresso and missing words by billstewart · · Score: 1

      I see that one done wrong way too often.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  81. BS BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consider the missing comma here: "Mary had freckles on her but we liked her anyway." Without the comma, one could infer that Mary's ass was speckled.

    That's nonsense on several counts.

    1. But is spelled differently than butt.

    But since there's a typo, you don't know where it is without knowing what it shall mean in the first place.

    2. No comma is necessary in sentences like your example.

    [Citation needed]

    By which I mean you're going to find plenty of examples of excellent writers routinely dispensing with the comma in parallel grammatical structures.

    And you're going to find plenty of opposite examples using the comma.

    3. If the sentence was spoken, intonation would make it quite clear what was meant. The pitch on the but would be higher than butt.

    In this context--possibly. But there are other examples. And this doesn't help if the text is written, which is the whole point of punctuation ...

    4. Pretty much any argument about "bad grammar" that's based on the ambiguity of a constructed example sentence presented without any context where it would be used is bullshit. Context routinely disambiguates language.

    The opposite is true. But that's filtering the facts to suit one's own preferences for you.

    Another examply (by Lynne Truss):

    A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.

    'Why?' asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

    'Well, I'm a panda,' he says, at the door. 'Look it up.'

    The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. 'Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.'

  82. Did you actually read my question? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you're actually interested: fewer relates to countable nouns, less to uncountable. Less water, fewer glasses. "Less glasses" sounds as wrong as "fewer water".

    Did you actually read what I posted? I explicitly said that I would not accept any explanation "that consists of simply restating the rule in question in complicated and impressive-sounding language that may or may not betray the fact that the explainer has never been to a Linguistics 101 course."

    You get a few points on using "countable" and "uncountable." Now answer my question and explain to me why you insist that "fewer relates to countable nouns, less to uncountable."

    1. Re:Did you actually read my question? by lgw · · Score: 2

      As I suspected, you weren't actually interested, though other /. readers may be. If you have some point to make, you should make it, and not try to get me to play "guess what it has in its pocketses".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Did you actually read my question? by tater86 · · Score: 1

      Kafhuaw Jaurajhj Juyoyudtb. If you don't understand, perhaps I should have followed the rules that someone made up.

    3. Re:Did you actually read my question? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      I believe I address your implicit argument in this post. But in short, no, the rules of English grammar weren't "made up" by anybody.

    4. Re:Did you actually read my question? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Because it says so in Grammar and Language Arts textbooks, which are the closest things to official that language has. To say that language develops over time is fine, but at this point the language has not developed; it's still taught this way in schools. The fact that it's understandable doesn't make it right. Of course you'll say that I'm just quoting a rule someone made up. How you expect to communicate without following some sort of "rules someone made up" I don't know. It's also worth pointing out that no one is per se complaining about this in a random Internet post or other venue where perfection is neither expected nor reasonable, but in a sign that pretty much every grocery store everywhere uses.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    5. Re:Did you actually read my question? by dotgain · · Score: 2, Funny

      ^ more internets to this man

    6. Re:Did you actually read my question? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      Because it says so in Grammar and Language Arts textbooks, which are the closest things to official that language has.

      But (a) the Linguistics textbooks say otherwise, and (b) actually, many usage guides endorse countable less (check out, for example, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, which is probably the best usage guide).

      Many history textbooks have said that Colombus faced considerable resistance to his project because medieval Europeans thought the Earth was flat. Which is just false; the people who wrote those textbooks got the claim from fictional accounts of Colombus' life. Do you know who writes the textbooks that you'd cite as authorities, and do you know the actual extent of their knowledge of language? It's very lacking. The "rules" usually come about because some dude made up some bogus reason to reject some construction as "wrong" despite the fact that everybody's used it for hundreds of years, and then grammar nazis cite him and each other as an "authority."

      The story of the supposed prohibition on possessive antecents is notable for being (a) recent (the rule was invented out of thin air in the 1960's), (b) especially absurd (both in the reasoning behind the rule, and in the broad range of English classics that it would render "wrong").

      How you expect to communicate without following some sort of "rules someone made up" I don't know.

      The same way you communicate all the time, by using rules that nobody made up. That's what language is.

    7. Re:Did you actually read my question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, they were made up at some point and eventually you were told those rules. you're taught in school what the word "dog" means. that is a rule. "dog = that furry four-legged thing." you don't just start calling it a dog 'cause you wanted to do so. that's just an idiotic argument. everyone didn't magically just start calling it "dog." there was a time when "dog" meant nothing. someone than applied a meaning to it. there is always a first. someone had named it and the name caught on. before there were actual rules, a lot of them were created based on popular usage. your argument just calls for the modification of language because a bunch of people started using words improperly. usually, that happens eventually, but it saddens me because words have specific meanings so you can speak clearly and precisely. As words start losing their meaning because you're too lazy to learn how to use them, it slowly becomes more and more difficult to speak precisely because folks like you have bastardized language and misuse words and create ambiguity.

    8. Re:Did you actually read my question? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      His (her?) point was probably that the less/fewer peeve is bogus. If you consult any competent history of the English language (e.g., the OED), you'll learn that "less" has been used for countable quantities for as long as we have cites for its uses. Also, math in English has always used "less than" for all numeric comparisons, discrete or continuous, and has rarely ever used "fewer" for anything. The math symbol '<' is always read "less than"; never "fewer than".

      The idea that "less" should be only for mass-like quantities and "fewer" only for discrete, countable quantities is a pseudo-rule made up by people who wanted to limit them to distinct meanings. This pseudo-rule goes against the entire history of these two words in English.

      (I wonder why we never seem to hear about a similar peeve for "more" vs. "greater". Hmmm ... maybe I could start a whole new language peeve, with a bit of posting to various blogs ... ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    9. Re:Did you actually read my question? by fj3k · · Score: 1

      There are people who care about precise meanings, and people who don't care about precise meanings. Sometimes one group will win out on how we move forward, other times the other will. The imprecise side of the collective 'us' allowed the American/rest-of-us spelling rift to take place, but it was the precise side that formalised it. You can get annoyed at people who, through their laziness, make it difficult for you to understand what they are saying; or you can choose to let it go. Nobody is perfect, and there is often lots of fun in pointing out the stupid things people say without meaning to.

      --
      Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
    10. Re:Did you actually read my question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Strunk/White has the rule, so I use it. As for your last point, it is probably a sign of the economic times.

  83. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, its a matter of communication.

    As far as I can tell, this is your one mistake; it should be "it's a matter of communication". Other than that, I agree with what you wrote completely.

  84. More annoying in my opinion by mfraz74 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is the amount of words spelt the American way here in the UK. For example words ending in ize instead of ise, color, tire and gotten.

    1. Re:More annoying in my opinion by unitron · · Score: 1

      Are you complaining about the use of the word "gotten" instead of the different word "got", or is there an alternate spelling for "gotten" of which I am unaware?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    2. Re:More annoying in my opinion by mfraz74 · · Score: 1

      There's become, obtained, received for starters.

  85. Best answer so far. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Because it's convention. Why do we use the word "water" to mean that liquidy stuff you find in lakes? Why does "the" refer to a specific instance of an entity and "a" applies to any given instance of an entity?

    You've given the best answer so far.

    Still not enough, though, because you've failed to address this: what are the criteria that you're using to judge that the "fewer" vs. "less" rule that you cite is in fact the convention?

    1. Re:Best answer so far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't the convention in computer science. We say "nine is less than ten". not "nine is fewer than ten"

    2. Re:Best answer so far. by adonoman · · Score: 1
      It's not my judgement to make - that's been accepted usage for centuries. Few has meant "a small indefinite number" refering to countable objects since old english. We've had "less" and "little" to talk about uncountable amounts since about the same time. The nice people at the OED have gone through and cataloged the usages of various words throughout the centuries, and they've observed that in the vast majority of cases, people use "fewer" to refer to countable nouns, and "less" to refer to uncountable nouns.

      If you feel they are in error, please feel free to index/catalog/analyze existing literature to make your own judgment on the matter. I'm sure the OED will be happy to hear from you if their definition is in error, since they approach their dictionary in a descriptive, rather than proscriptive manner - when the language changes, they will note it (and they'll also keep track of archaic usages).

    3. Re:Best answer so far. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      It's not my judgement to make - that's been accepted usage for centuries.

      And now I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate this claim at depth. I mean, not just cite some manuals as evidence, but also explain why we should take those manuals as evidence that the rule has been accepted usage for centuries.

      Let me preemptively link to this Amazon review of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage , simply because it cites that book's entry on the "less/fewer" issue (and I don't have the book with me right now). Basically, the claim that the rule in question has been accepted usage for centuries runs afoul of the fact that the counterexamples go back about 900 years before the rule was formulated, without anybody taking care to complain about how "wrong" they were. (And hell, Baker himself, first guy to state the rule, said that less was "most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better." Which if anything suggests that the rule was more likely in contrast to accepted usage.

    4. Re:Best answer so far. by Toonol · · Score: 1

      You could ask the smart, educated English speakers who demonstrate a good grasp of the language. That's pretty much what dictionaries do, to form their consensus.

      Of course, several of those people have been responding to you, and you're obstinately not listening. You're looking for that other consensus, the kind composed of people that agree with you.

    5. Re:Best answer so far. by dotgain · · Score: 1

      That's because "9.237 is fewer than 9.835" is incorrect.

    6. Re:Best answer so far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because "9.237 is fewer than 9.835" is incorrect.

      9.237 fewer what? Apples? Items?

    7. Re:Best answer so far. by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Fewer idiots who can't see my point that integers don't have the monopoly on numeric comparisons.

    8. Re:Best answer so far. by unitron · · Score: 1

      Re:Best answer so far. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Wed Aug 11, '10 04:54 PM (#33220860)

      It isn't the convention in computer science. We say "nine is less than ten". not "nine is fewer than ten"

      Nine may be less than ten, but nine are fewer than ten.

      In other words, the quantity "nine" (a singular thing) is less than the quantity "ten", but nine of something (a plural thing) are fewer than ten of that same thing.

      Come to think of it, nine of anything are fewer than ten of anything, even if it's nine of one thing and ten of some other thing.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    9. Re:Best answer so far. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The inequality operators generally work on real numbers, not discrete numbers, and thus you say “nine is less than ten” just as you would say “nine pounds of flour is less than ten pounds of flour”.

      For discrete, countable quantities, however, you still use “fewer”.

      E.g. you would say that nine database records is fewer than ten records (we’re comparing countable quantities) because nine is less than ten (now we’re comparing real numbers in general).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  86. Re:Communication by antdude · · Score: 1

    Your post was fine. I hate the one whose posts are awful. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  87. Fewer waters by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

    Uncountables can be counted, when you mean collectively. Arizona has fewer waters than Minnesota; "waters" used thus means "lakes, rivers, and so on." Wal-Mart has fewer catsups than my local grocery (Wal-Mart has Heinz, Hunt's and the store brand; the local grocer carries six).

  88. You may want to finish that quote. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 3, Informative

    From dictionary.com: "Even though less has been used before plural nouns ( less words; less men ) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns ( less sugar; less money ) and singular abstract nouns ( less honesty; less love ). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states."

    You know, that quote continues. The next sentence after you cut it off: "Modern standard English practice does not reflect this distinction."

    Note that they said standard. The entry is actually endorsing the use of constructions like less words and less men.

    It's no surprise that people don't understand this distinction. Look at the confusion around the word data, which has become popular over the last decade or two to treat as a plural ("The data suggest..." when it should be "The data suggests..."). I'm quite certain that many people will protest this post, that "data" is plural, and treating it as such is correct.

    Um, from dictionary.com: "data (noun): a pl. of datum." Yes, the very same source that you misleadingly cite as an authority above for less/fewer.

    If "data" is plural, then so are the following: sugar, information, hair, media, agenda...

    Care to actually argue why? I can't tell you how wrong you are about that unless you spell out why you think so.

    1. Re:You may want to finish that quote. by severoon · · Score: 1

      Many dictionaries, including dictionary.com, do not exist to define the language, but rather to reflect it. When linguistic travesties like scan or biannual happen, they are perfectly content to add both conflicting definitions. In other words, they do not exist as an authoritative source on what language should be, only what is in common use today.

      That doesn't mean common use is sensible, though. Take scan: I quickly scanned the police report to see why the deputy had been out in the field for a full two hours. It used to be that this would have been improper use of the word scan, which meant to examine closely (scan still retains this definition). What happened to this word, which now also has a conflicting definition, to look over or leaf through hastily?

      I'll bet that technology is to blame for that second conflicting definition. When the first grocery store checkout scanners came out, the technologists probably titled them scanners because they closely examine UPC symbols—that they do so rapidly is nice, but cannot be the point of the original title or else they would have been called skimmers. But to a customer, the scanner was a jump forward not because it was marginally more accurate than a checkout clerk, but rather because it was vastly faster. So the association was set in people's minds, and now we have an ambiguous word.

      I cannot bring myself to this kind of usage just because it has become "proper" according to the dictionary. Consider the prefix bi-. Does this mean two or half? Well, what does bisect mean? It means to divide into two parts, or cut in half. So this doesn't help us nail it down because it's ambiguous as to whether the bi- signifies two-ness or half-ness. What about bisexual or bicycle? I would argue that, in these two cases, it is clearly two-ness being expressed...half-ness just doesn't make sense in the case of a bicycle, since unicycles and tricycles exist and the comparison is clear, and I don't even want to know what your perception of bisexuality is if an interpretation based on half-ness makes sense to you. This leads me to think, for the sake of consistency, I should consider bi- prefixes to refer to two-ness. This approach does not exclude any case which might also be construed as half-ness, for all such cases can just as validly be interpreted as instances of two-ness as in the case of bisect. The reverse is not true.

      Ok, so we're agreed, then. Words prefixed with bi- imply two-ness, and rely on the stem of the word to define the thing that has taken on two-ness. Bisect, for example, means to section, or divide, into two parts. The fact that a bisected object is associated with halving, as opposed to doubling, has to do with the fact that the object is being sect-ed, and nothing to do with being bi-ed.

      What about biennial, then? What should this mean: twice per year or every two years? Well, the stem -ennial means year, and bi- means two, so I arrive at an expected definition of occurring every two years. Bingo—that's exactly what it means.

      What about biannual? The same argument applies, right? Wrong! Well, not wrong, but not necessarily right. This word can mean either twice per year or every two years (likewise with biweekly and bimonthly). How fickle! But, I am forced to admit that there is simply no other available way we could, in a single word, refer to something that happens twice per some period of time, so I'll grudgingly let it go.

      Except...there is such a word available to us, and it doesn't have an alternative, conflicting definition. Furthermore, it has no conno

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    2. Re:You may want to finish that quote. by severoon · · Score: 1

      As if to prove my point, providence has afforded me yet one more log to toss on the flames.

      From a /. article: Data Disasters More Likely To Strike In Summer : "The turbulent summer weather leads to a surge in data loss incidents, according to industry experts..."

      Let us consider data to be a plural, as you seem to like it. Could one speak about a data disaster? Can you present even one example of another plural form that would fit there? Are we likely to see a story tomorrow about a "meteors disaster" or hear about how Oklahoma suffers from a "tornadoes problem"?

      We begin reading the summary and we barely get our trousers off we come across "a surge in data loss incidents". If a bunch of monkeys catch a fatal disease, is the zoo suffering a surge in "monkeys loss," or "monkey loss"?

      I contend there is nothing wrong with the /. article I reference above. If we accept your position, however, we could only speak about how "datum disasters" are more likely in summer, and how summer weather leans to a surge in "datum loss incidents."

      Sorry. I refuse to speak that way.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    3. Re:You may want to finish that quote. by severoon · · Score: 1

      we barely get our trousers off before we come across

      and how summer weather leads to a surge in

      Irony's a bitch, what can I say?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    4. Re:You may want to finish that quote. by unitron · · Score: 1

      So what are the chances that summer weather will cause the loss of only a single datum?

      (which is not to say that the loss of a single datum might not be disasterous)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    5. Re:You may want to finish that quote. by severoon · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. When the zoo suffers "monkey loss," it's the loss of multiple monkeys. Still, in that construction, it is correct to use the singular form of "monkey" because it describes the type of loss. Likewise, it is proper to say "data loss" specifically because the word data is singular, not plural. Most people would agree that "data loss" is a fine thing to say, but then those people will turn around and argue that data is plural, not realizing that this conflicts with their own prior statement.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  89. bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another case of known it all college grammar nazis. No contributions to society save grief.

  90. "Because some dude made up a rule that says so." by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Really, what is grammar but a bunch of rules that we've agreed to use?

  91. Typos? Don't look around here! by pepik_knize · · Score: 1

    Keep them away from Slashdot! Otherwise they'll hack in and fix this: The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.

  92. Baker, 1770 by Chirs · · Score: 1

    'This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. "No Fewer than a Hundred" appears to me, not only more elegant than "No less than a Hundred," but more strictly proper.'

  93. Re:Communication by Subm · · Score: 1

    "Like it or not, I can attest to the fact that I often mentally judge someone by their speech if I am talking to them, or by their spelling and punctuation if I am reading their writing."

    There's your problem right there: being judgmental. That's your problem, not theirs.

    "Now, unleash the Grammar Nazis ... :)"

    Your problem isn't grammar, it's style. Too many words. For example, the first eleven words of your post are bloat. You could replace the whole first sentence with "I judge people by their communication skills," a savings of 30/37 words, or 81%. Most of your other sentences have extra words and the paragraphs have extra sentences. Come to think of it, you might replace the whole post with that sentence, losing some meaning but gaining clarity and brevity.

    But it's your writing. It's up to you.

  94. Soy meat. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Vegetarian chilli-con-carne" is no more an oxymoron that "soy meat" is. There are plenty of so-called intensional or non-intersective grammatical constructions, where modifying X with Y results in an expression that is not an X. A "fake Rolex" is not a Rolex; it's something that's pretending to be a Rolex. Likewise, "vegetarian chili con carne" is not chili con carne; it's a vegetarian dish that substitutes for chili con carne.

    1. Re:Soy meat. by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 1

      There is a perfectly good name for the thing that some people call "vegetarian chilli con carne" - it is chilli. It reflects the problems that occur when words cross languages and people don't understand what they mean ("vegetarian chilli with meat" - really?). This is not the same as a fake Rolex. But if you think vegetarian chilli con carne is acceptable then so too should be "vegetarian chilli-con-carne with meat" and so on to any order or recursion you can stand.

  95. I've seen worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He needs to check out this site:

    http://www.securingjava.com/appdx-c/appdx-c-6.html

    Because the author of this page can't spell identity w/o titty. Rofl.

  96. Re:"Because some dude made up a rule that says so. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Really, what is grammar but a bunch of rules that we've agreed to use?

    But the thing is that that's an uncommon, technical sense of "agree." We didn't have a convention where we all sat down and indicated our assent to a bunch of rules that Mr. Dude proposed. The "agreement" is more like this: we all carry out the practice of using the word "dog" to mean Canis familiaris. We all assume that English-speaking strangers also do. This assumption is rarely (if ever) contradicted by anybody we'd call an English speaker. An English speaker who insisted too vehemently otherwise would likely be seen as mentally insane, or at least not serious.

    Do you really think that "less is only used with mass nouns" a rule of grammar in that sense?

  97. Some dude says so. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    'This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. "No Fewer than a Hundred" appears to me, not only more elegant than "No less than a Hundred," but more strictly proper.'

    So, some dude from 1770 thought it was "more elegant" and "more strictly proper." In what sense was he correct about this judgement?

  98. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree and, moreover, think how we'll a person demonstrates correct knowledge of grammar is a reasonable place to begin measuring that person's education/intelligence.

    Additionally, correct grammar has a purpose and meaning. It clarifies what is being communicated specifically. Now, most people don't communicate nuanced or detailed ideas that require extensive use of grammar to be accurately understood. However, this does not negate the purpose or value of grammar, or indicate that people shouldn't use correct grammar. It just indicates that most communication falls outside the range of requiring detailed language rules. But without those rules, we can't communicate in a nuanced manner and may not even be able to tell when something is nuanced or obvious.

    There is a difference; the fact you don't understand the difference doesn't make it irrelevant. Learn it and you'll discover you'll use it more often than you expect.

  99. Re:"Because some dude made up a rule that says so. by adonoman · · Score: 1
    I would put an insistence on using "less" instead of "fewer" on the same level of insisting on calling Canis familiaris "doggy" rather than "dog". There's no loss in understanding, it's common enough that it's not utterly jarring, it just identifies the speaker as either uneducated, or a child.

    On the other hand, someone who insists on the reverse - substituting "fewer" when they mean "less", will cause most English speakers to cringe: "My glass has fewer milk than his!"

  100. Re:"Because some dude made up a rule that says so. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Really, what is grammar but a bunch of rules that we've agreed to use?

    Is it simply a bunch of rules that we've agreed to use, or is it a reflection of our cognitive functions? We perceve objects, so we have nouns. Objects have characteristics, so we have adjectives. Objects seem to act; voila, verbs. These actions have their own characteristics: adverbs.

    If language is based on arbitrary rules and conventions, on culture, then there should be syntax and grammars that are present in certain languages, but absent in others. However, if language mirrors our cognitive functions, then all languages should have analogous grammar and syntax.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  101. Re:the english language is better off with out gra by maxume · · Score: 1

    Sure. Which is why I called such discussions tiresome. Or do you mean to deny that there are people that attempt to have such discussions?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  102. Re:"Because some dude made up a rule that says so. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    I would put an insistence on using "less" instead of "fewer" on the same level of insisting on calling Canis familiaris "doggy" rather than "dog". There's no loss in understanding, it's common enough that it's not utterly jarring, it just identifies the speaker as either uneducated, or a child.

    Why do you think it identifies the speaker as "uneducated"? Have you actually researched how educated people speak and write?

  103. Re:should pay for that pro spell check and not use by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

    should of payed for that pro spell check and not use the free build in one.

    Maybe you should have too... I think "built in" would be the term you were looking for.

    I don't know what is worse here - that you made a really embarrassing whoosh, or that you only found one error in the quoted text.

  104. Hell yeah by Alarindris · · Score: 1
  105. Same error in the Oxford Dictionary by NobodyKnows · · Score: 1

    Funny thing: the Davis Square sign-makers that inspired this book actually have an excuse, if they use Macs. Look at the definition for "trespassing" in the New Oxford American Dictionary that ships with every Mac (the app or the widget-- doesn't matter.) The definition includes a note called "tresspass on," with the same typo that drove Jeff Deck so crazy. Maybe Steve Jobs needs to get involved....

  106. Loook what they done! by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

    http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/08/06/if-there-were-ever-a-time-to-hold-your-red-pen/

    It's funny, the mistake wouldn't bother me.. but the Comic Sans MS?

    1. Re:Loook what they done! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Gah, not to mention... is it addressed to “Our Dear Co-worker and Friend”? If so, was the dead woman not one of their dear co-workers and friends? Or perhaps she was a co-worker, but not much of a friend or of a dear one.

      They also apparently couldn’t figure out whether they wanted “to be” to modify “a service” or “held”.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  107. Re:Standard spelling/grammar is an elitist conspir by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

    Absolutely! Describe! Don't prescribe!

    I can't remember which Stephen Pinker book it was, but in one they analyzed a recording of a young black American man (can't remember where he was from) speaking and found his grammar to be perfectly consistent with the rules of his own dialect. A dialect which, in many instances, is superior to "standard English" in that it allows one to be more specific with what they're saying while using less words.
    I'm sorry I can't remember which book, but I'd highly recommend any of them.

  108. Re:Communication by izomiac · · Score: 1

    I concur. It has been my long-held assumption that "sloppy grammar/spelling == sloppy thinking". If you don't take the time to correct any obvious errors, there is little evidence that you took the time to actually think through what it is you're saying. While a smart person might be ignorant of grammatical rules, smart people make an effort to correct their ignorance, so grammar is a decent proxy for detecting worthwhile comments. Foreigners confound this, but their mistakes are of a different sort, which becomes recognizable.

    Everything has its limits though. Some people care more about the form of language than the function. So you can't let the form hinder the function (i.e. poor grammar), nor prioritize the form over the function (e.g. a grammar nazi, or going out of your way to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition).

  109. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "its a matter of communication" should read "it's a matter of communication." And, there should be a period after mistake. :-P

  110. GO TO A TEA PARTY RALLY by ifeelswine · · Score: 0

    LIER IN CHEIF!#!$!!!!!

  111. english teachers unite! by sqkybeaver · · Score: 0

    the only crime committed is against the American people by leaving bad grammar in place you only foster ignorance.

  112. Re:Communication by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Ironically enough, spelling rules were put in place so that jack asses like you could feel smugly superior to everybody else. William Shakespeare, one of the greatest playwrights of all time would spell the same word several different ways in the same play. Proper grammar tends to get in the way of actually communicating. I happen to have a gift for language and a learning disorder, if you bother to read the posts out loud they work very well typically. But they aren't generally spelled completely proper nor do they obey the relevant conventions, because there's no point. It's one thing to write gibberish and quite another to write stuff that isn't perfectly formed. In this part of the world, you don't even get grammar in high school, let alone college.

    But, the underlying problem here is that grammar Nazis are bullies, plain and simple. There's generally no reason to do it, other than a possible OCD or Asperger's diagnoses. And they should be getting relevant help.

  113. Re:Communication by bongey · · Score: 1

    So by your logic Steven Hawking is "uneducated". It pisses me off to no end when people start judging someone by how the communicate. It is logical fallacy , if-then.
    Example: If someone cannot communicate well , then they are "uneducated".
    As far as I am concerned, grammar nazis can go to hell. I spent my life being judge by communication skills, because well I have learning disability, and cannot write or speech well, but I do try, only to have ass hats judge me. I double majored in CS and Math(both tracks, theoretical math and applied math), Physics TA, and by your logic I am uneducated also.

  114. Re:Communication by porges · · Score: 1

    Only because this is the grammar thread: you want "sic", not "sick".

  115. Re:Communication by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1

    No problem. Your style is to string overly long sentences together with commas. There are five in the fourth sentence of your first paragraph alone. Doesn't that bug you?

  116. Re:Communication by shermo · · Score: 1

    And yet most posts which carry the disclaimer of 'English is not my native language' are well thought out, passed through a spellcheck and are easily understandable. It's the native speakers who don't take the time to use a spellcheck, and don't put any effort into their writing at all.

    Yours is a great example. There's no way I would have guessed you were not a native English speaker.

    --
    Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  117. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In other words, its a matter of communication"

    I hope you know the difference between it's and its and your error above is just a typo. It's a typo, right?

  118. Spelling != Grammar. by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

    While I realize it's probably just an error on the summary-writer's part, it's still true.

    --
    R.Mo
  119. Re:Communication by Dracophile · · Score: 1

    I tried to be correct throughout, but I am sure I have made at least one mistake :)

    That's a good hedge: you can't be wrong.

    --
    Athy, athier, athiest.
  120. Insert Related Anecdote by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    Since I'm such a fun guy, I have on occasion taken pictures of signs lacking in punctuation, and then tweeted the picture a long with my "corrected" version.

    Unfortunately, I just don't have the balls to actually go buy some paint and make my corrections. Here's two examples:

    "Private Lot? No, Student Parking!"

    "Jesus loves you? Why? Die a victim with the devil. When you can live a victor with Jesus Christ, don't. Die in your sins."

    Obviously, since the original signs lacked punctuation there's no way to be 100% sure I've preserved the intended meaning . . .

  121. Re:Communication by Lunzo · · Score: 1

    Written English is different. I find the native speakers tend to be lax with spelling or punctuation or not even know the rules. The people who learnt it as a second language have a much better grasp of grammar. Their writing has much more clarity.

  122. Hey look its their family crest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/douche-family-crest.htm

    Hey here’s an idea, Instead of being douches they could volunteer to tutor students in English at their local schools!

  123. Re:Communication by strikethree · · Score: 1

    ROFL. Despite your errors, you showed fairly reasonable grammar and spelling skills. Furthermore, you showed that you had given the subject some thought. I would say your thought took you too far though. I suspect the OP is not really a grammar nazi and he is willing to discard some errors, such as yours (speech vs sepak (sic)). The problem is when the errors are so pervasive that they start affecting the actual meaning of what is being said. If I have to try and decide if you meant one thing or another because of errors, then your communication is too tedious to be worthwhile.

    Again, your post was fine despite at least one simple error. You were able to communicate effectively and that is what is important. Relax. :)

    strike

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  124. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, ingorance/laziness and lack of experience are often distinguishable from each other. As a matter of fact, non-natives rarely fall for the idiotic mistakes like using an apostrophe for pluralization.

  125. Re:Communication by StuffMaster · · Score: 0

    Poor logic also causes people to dismiss you. Equating written communication with a job estimate for manual labor is, well, non-persuasive.

  126. Re:"Because some dude made up a rule that says so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think it identifies the speaker as "uneducated"? Have you actually researched how educated people speak and write?

    One does not need to research something to accept it. I've done very little research into gravity, but I understand that in most cases things fall down when released. There are some exceptions (executive magnetic desktoys, for instance), but as a rule I'm ok with it. I don't care whether anyone else has researched it or not - my own anecdotal evidence over the past 40 years says gravity works.

    I also assume that when someone continually breaks basic grammar rules, that their education is somewhat lacking. As a general rule, it's steered me pretty well - my personal prejudices are shaped by such things, though outwardly I treat all people as equally as I can.

    Nobody is perfect, though an interest in basic communication is a good way to not come across as a knuckle-dragging neaderthal.

  127. Re:Communication by gfreeman · · Score: 1

    There's your problem right there: being judgmental. That's your problem, not theirs

    But everyone does it, all the time. In fact you have to be judgmental in order to differentiate. You cannot treat everyone the same, regardless of who they are.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  128. Sounds like.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new Discovery CHannel show. I didn't rea the whole article, so dont kick me if it actually is.

  129. I found a typo in the excerpt... by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    And would I be alone in my fight, against the whole world?

    Oops, that's one comma, too much.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  130. Re:should pay for that pro spell check and not use by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    Your own language skills must be rather poor if you completely overlooked all of his other typos.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  131. Bent Offerings by Kelson · · Score: 1

    I found a scan of the comic strip on my computer. It was Bent Offerings, by Don Addis.

  132. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, its a matter of communication.

    In other words, it's a matter of communication.

  133. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, its a matter of communication.

    I feel so special now.

  134. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would consider myself a lower-class, uneducated and possibly not very bright individual. You forgot a period at the end.

  135. Re:Communication by tibman · · Score: 1

    It could also be that it takes more intelligence to learn two written languages. The people you are meeting who write english as a second language could just be smarter than most people.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  136. Re:Communication by tibman · · Score: 1

    I think you misunderstood what the AC was trying to say. If the roofer writes the estimate like a 4th-grader but has good references, he will hire the roofer. If he's getting an estimate for his business signage and the sign maker can barely spell, he will pass. High intelligence, or the apperance thereof, is not always a requirement to get shit done.

    Phrogman was basically saying if someone looks or acts like a "lower class" he will ignore/dismiss them. Elitism like that is a sign too.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman