'Daylight Savings' Is Grammatically Incorrect (qz.com)

A reader shares a report: We talk about time like it's money, and that may explain why we say "Daylight Savings Time," capitalizing the concept to emphasize its awesomeness. After all, who wouldn't want to be able to save hours like cash? The phrase "Daylight Savings Time," though commonly used in Australia, Canada, and the US, is technically incorrect. Time and Date, a website devoted to all things chronological, posits that the plural "savings" became popular because it's used in everyday contexts, like "savings account." The grammatically correct usage is "daylight saving time." The expression is singular and not capitalized, according to the US Government Publishing Office style guide. The GPO provides the guidance, "d.s.t., daylight saving (no 's') time."

Comments

Grammar Nazi's Win!

[Austerity Empowers]

We now have a grammar nazi post on the front page. Slashdot has really evolved, from the nascent grammar troll posts, through the mercurial grammar nazi years, to a full fledged front page grammar post.

I'm going to continue to say Daylight Savings Time, because that is how nearly everyone says it, and alter the language irrevocably. In 50 years, hopefully we will have done away with daylight savings time completely and this topic will be dead, but if we have not, Daylight Savings Time will be the correct way to say it.

Re:Grammar Nazi's Win!

[mjwx]

We now have a grammar nazi post on the front page. Slashdot has really evolved, from the nascent grammar troll posts, through the mercurial grammar nazi years, to a full fledged front page grammar post.

I'm going to continue to say Daylight Savings Time, because that is how nearly everyone says it, and alter the language irrevocably. In 50 years, hopefully we will have done away with daylight savings time completely and this topic will be dead, but if we have not, Daylight Savings Time will be the correct way to say it.

This, there is a lot of phrases and words in languages that are grammatically incorrect, however they're in the language because they're in popular use. Languages are not a science, they're also living things and change over time. Languages are based on what people use, not what is set out in a book of rules. Heaps of words are completely wrong like "ain't" which is a bastardisation of "isn't" and not a contraction of anything (isn't == is not) but its in popular use in some places much the same as "innit" in the UK (also a bastardisation of isn't).

After that we have localisations, a word can mean different things in different places. Americans and Australians use the word "pants" to refer to any pair of clothing with separate legs, however in British English it refers exclusively to underwear (pants are trousers here). Neither definition is strictly incorrect, it just depends on where you are as to which one you use.

And that mein Grammar Nazi's is just the tip of the mother fucking iceberg.

English is an incredibly fault tolerant language. You can use completely the wrong sausage and everyone will still understand what you bacon. This is what makes the language so powerful and widely used. No other language in the world has the same robustness which is why it will remain the language of business for a long time.

Finally, this is far from the worst issue with grammar these days. Priorities people, get some.