Grammar and Word Usage

[Jim Koepke]

Ever have to stop and think about the correct usage of words like:

choose and chose
loose and lose

Why is for a while correct an for awhile incorrect?

well, the answers are here:

http://languageandgrammar.com/common-grammar-errors/

jtk

[Brian Kent]

Thank you Jim. Sometimes I think I am loosing my mind. But then that is impossible because there is no such word as "loosing".

[Stephen Tashiro]

Shakespear's "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war" had been improved by modern writers who prefer to employ the phrase "loose the dogs of war". Couldn't we speak of "loosing the dogs of war"?

[Jim Koepke]

Shakespear's "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war" had been improved by modern writers who prefer to employ the phrase "loose the dogs of war". Couldn't we speak of "loosing the dogs of war"?

Or loosing our minds on a particular problem?

I know a few times I enjoy loosening my mind with a little mind lubricant called rum, wine or beer.

As I lay down to sleep, after any prayers I like to let my mind run loose as it may choose.

jtk

[Burt Alcantara]

Eats, Shoots & Leaves
The zero tolerance approach to punctuation by Lynne Truss.

A great read.

[John Coloccia]

I can live with lousy punctuation and spelling as long as I can decipher what someone's trying to say. I may not like it, but I'll generally let it go. It's the phrases that at one time made sense, but that people have turned into idiomatic expressions, that irk me especially when the phrase is correct but the meaning is completely wrong.

"The proof is in the pudding"

"The exception that proves the rule"

"For all intensive purposes"

My wife says I'm going to make a wonderful grumpy, old man someday :)

[glenn bradley]

I struggle with how the affect will effect people.

[Jim Rimmer]

I can live with lousy punctuation and spelling as long as I can decipher what someone's trying to say. I may not like it, but I'll generally let it go. It's the phrases that at one time made sense, but that people have turned into idiomatic expressions, that irk me especially when the phrase is correct but the meaning is completely wrong.

"The proof is in the pudding"

"The exception that proves the rule"

"For all intensive purposes"

My wife says I'm going to make a wonderful grumpy, old man someday :)
You might enjoy this: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/proof-of-the-pudding.html

[Dan Hintz]

"For all intensive purposes"
I think this one is misquoted so often because people have only heard it spoken... when I was eight, I thought my dad was saying "I Pacifically said..." rather than "specifically". I couldn't figure out what an ocean had to do with it, but my mind was molding the spoken words to what knowledge my brain currently stored. Sure, it makes no sense, but we're willing to let the lack of meaning go because the desired meaning appears to be understood.



Of, and for those who are not aware, it's "For all intents and purposes...", meaning "for all practical purposes..."

[John Coloccia]

Good point, Dan. I guess I should have given the actually meanings:

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating", "proof" being used in the sense of "test". The test of something's quality is to actually use it.

"The exception that proves the rule". This is a legal term. If you see a sign that says "Park open Dawn til Dusk", it need not also say "Park closed Dusk til Dawn". The rule is "The park is closed excepting the times stated, dawn til dusk". The act of stating the exception to the rule IMPLIES the rule exists, and legally no further statement is needed. The sign "Children admitted free" is proof that the rule exists "Adults are NOT admitted free".

[Rick Moyer]

Ever have to stop and think about the correct usage of words like:

choose and chose
loose and lose

Why is for a while correct an for awhile incorrect?

well, the answers are here:

http://languageandgrammar.com/common-grammar-errors/

jtk


You might enjoy this: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/proof-of-the-pudding.html

Thanks for the links, guys!
Now if I could just put the "better to remain silent...." adage into more practice.

[Bill Edwards(2)]

I knew a guy that told me he had to get the muffler fixed on his car before the
police stopped him and "pounded" his car.

Can't say I've ever seen that on "Cops"! http://www.unclebill.us/bigs/think.gif

[Dan Hintz]

I knew a guy that told me he had to get the muffler fixed on his car before the
police stopped him and "pounded" his car.

Can't say I've ever seen that on "Cops"! http://www.unclebill.us/bigs/think.gif
No, but I've seen them give a few perps the ol' wood shampoo before...

[Michael O'Sullivan]

I can live with lousy punctuation and spelling as long as I can decipher what someone's trying to say. I may not like it, but I'll generally let it go. It's the phrases that at one time made sense, but that people have turned into idiomatic expressions, that irk me especially when the phrase is correct but the meaning is completely wrong.

"The proof is in the pudding"

"The exception that proves the rule"

"For all intensive purposes"

My wife says I'm going to make a wonderful grumpy, old man someday :)

I can't get too worked up about "The exception that proves the rule," because the contemporary (if inaccurate) meaning is useful and makes some sense. Specifically, if a theoretical exception is extremely far-fetched, it tends to show that the rule is sound for all intensive purposes ;).

What really gets my goat is people who use foreign phrases inaccurately, thereby combining pretentiousness and ignorance. There is no such thing as "au jus sauce" nor can one serve "au jus" on the side. If you cannot use the expression correctly, "pan drippings" works just fine.

Similarly, it is a "shezz-long" not a "chase lounge". If you are uncomfortable with the pronunciation, "deck chair" practically trips off the toingue.

[Belinda Barfield]

What really gets my goat is people who use foreign phrases inaccurately, thereby combining pretentiousness and ignorance. There is no such thing as "au jus sauce" nor can one serve "au jus" on the side. If you cannot use the expression correctly, "pan drippings" works just fine.

Heavens, Mr. O'Sullivan, if I walked in to the local Arby's and heard someone order pan drippings with the roast beef sandwich I would think they had just come in from the woods. One seems so much more refined when ordering "aw juice" (as it is commonly pronounced in these parts). ;):D

As for the chase lounge, we got them things strung out all the way round the cement pond.

[Ron Natalie]

Common stupidity:

Its / It's
Affect/Effect
Moot/Mute
Virtually/Literally/Generally

[Dan Hintz]

nor can one serve "au jus" on the side.
I see no issue with asking for au jus on the side... au jus does not specify it has to be in juice, only that it is with.


Similarly, it is a "shezz-long" not a "chase lounge".
If the word was the original chaise longue (long chair), I would agree with your pronunciation. However, the Americanized version is not just a change in pronunciation, it is a change in the actual word(s) used... it is typically spelled "chaise lounge" (not longue), and while the first word is still mangled from a pronunciation standpoint, the second word has been modified enough to make the more likely pronunciation just as it is spelled.

[Michael O'Sullivan]

I see no issue with asking for au jus on the side... au jus does not specify it has to be in juice, only that it is with.

"Au jus" isn't a thing, it it as an adverbial/prepositional phrase. Could you have your "a la mode" on the side? ;)


If the word was the original chaise longue (long chair), I would agree with your pronunciation. However, the Americanized version is not just a change in pronunciation, it is a change in the actual word(s) used... it is typically spelled "chaise lounge" (not longue), and while the first word is still mangled from a pronunciation standpoint, the second word has been modified enough to make the more likely pronunciation just as it is spelled.

The problem is that "lounge" is a bastardization of "longue" -- changing a french word into a similar (but unrelated) English one.

P.S. don't get me started on comprise!!!! :)

[Jeff Dorlan]

Actually your third line should read, "For all INTENTS and purposes".

One that bothers me greatly is when people say, "I could care less", meaning they really don't care. So, them saying the former, actually means that they do care. The proper saying is "I COULDN'T care less".

Then people will say "Anyways..." No, people...it is not plural! Anyway...

[Michael O'Sullivan]

Actually your third line should read, "For all INTENTS and purposes".

One that bothers me greatly is when people say, "I could care less", meaning they really don't care. So, them saying the former, actually means that they do care. The proper saying is "I COULDN'T care less".

Then people will say "Anyways..." No, people...it is not plural! Anyway...

re intensive intentions and other intents, your irony meter may need recalibration (I suggest a Starrett). Hence the ;).......;)

[Dan Hintz]

Actually your third line should read, "For all INTENTS and purposes".
Jeff,

John was listing several phrases as often improperly stated.



Michael, too true, my bad... I should have made that just jus, not au jus. That said, it sounds really wierd to say "...with the jus on the side?"

[Michael O'Sullivan]

Jeff,

John was listing several phrases as often improperly stated.



Michael, too true, my bad... I should have made that just jus, not au jus. That said, it sounds really wierd to say "...with the jus on the side?"

C'est rien ;) Personally, I would just ask for "sauce."

Thinking more about "chase lounge", it is not pretentious, because people are not saying it to show off, but the sound does grate on my delicate ears.