Here's a link which visually explains some common writing mistakes which I often see on this site.
BigCloset TopShelf
TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
The Hatbox
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
Its and it's is the one that catches me the most, I think
thanks for this. I always struggled with that one.
This gets me sometimes,
This gets me sometimes, because it's looks like a possessive. Just try to substitute in your mind that it's is really it is.
It is.
It is really difficult sometimes to remember its it's contraction.
Unless you're me... :P
SORRY! Couldn't resist a little bitty itsy twister!
OK! YEAH! So I couldn't resist the "itsy" pun either, sue me!
Abigail Drew.
Dangit Ang!
You already corrected them before I could! :P
Uh, anyways, I guess it's fun and all, but, uhm... Do you really think it'll be helpful to anyone? My opinion is the only way for anyone to learn proper use of English is to read a LOT of it. Read, Read, READ! And then read some more. Visual guide's are like cheat sheets for dummies, it's much better to actually LEARN, and, in my opinion, cheat sheets can't actually teach anything.
Abigail Drew.
Guide's?
Can't remember whose Rule it is that someone trying to correct spelling or grammar invariably makes another mistake in so doing...
Eric
dur.
Figures I'd do something that stupid. Don't really have an excuse... my fingers just betrayed me! Bad fingers!
Abigail Drew.
Oh yes...
Here's another guide to the you / they / it:
He said "He's eating his apple!"
She said "She's eating her apple!"
It said "It's eating its apple!"
You said "You're eating your apple!"
They said "They're eating their apples over there!"
Number 11 often catches out supermarket sign designers, with the baskets only checkout often labelled "9 items or less"...
Of course, you also can't always rely on the spelling chequer you've installed on your pea sea to catch everything...
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
Peeving Peeves Again.
OK. So here I go. NO THESE THINGS DO NOT BOTHER ME AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!
All right, sorry for yelling but, ya' know, we do this ever so often, and I just don't get it. What is the big, huge problem here? And it does bother me when I make errors like this, because I know it bugs others, and I'd rather not do that, but, no, it doesn't bug me to see them, and I notice them in what others write much more quickly than in what I write too.
If you can handle 'it's/its', 'your/you're', 'there/their/they're', when listening, why is it such a big deal when people make a typing error? (And only two of that group of three are homophones in my idiolect, and it still doesn't cause me any problems.) If you can handle things like read/read, tear/tear, close/close while reading, why do these simple little errors cause you so much trouble? I'm sorry. but I just don't get it.
(Sigh. OK, I confess, I do have one of these. I get real upset when people write 'want' or 'won't' when they should use 'wont', but since I'm the only person I know that still uses 'wont', I never get the chance to peeve, and that's what bugs me the most.)
'Could of', 'would of', 'should of' (and, dare I type them: 'could'a', 'would'a', 'should'a') are the way we pronounce those things. Confess it: you do too. I'll bet even the Queen Mother did, though she probably sounded much different than my reformed upland southern. Even the Royals use relaxed pronunciation in their chambers, and you know it. Yes, don't use 'would of' in your college paper, but in a story's dialogue, or from a narrator who is familiar, why not?
Some of the other things this cartoonist griped about are called zombie rules, which is a misnomer, because zombies once had life and these 'rules' never really did, not in the way people ever talked or in the way very great writers wrote.
'Literally' has been being used figuratively since before anyone started literally bitching their head off about it. Really, even Defoe and Austin and a few Brontes did it. From the examples I've seen, I think 'literally' was used figuratively before 'literally' was ever used literally.
Leaving participles dangling, can sometimes be done to great effect! (Though maybe not here.) If Chaucer and Shakespeare had this tool, why shouldn't I?
At least this guy didn't do the passive voice stupidity or the "Lay down" comedy sketch, because then I probably would have literally (not a figurative use of literal either, maybe)torn my hair out and made this rant three times greater in words and no less. (that last sentence doesn't make a lot of sense, but neither does the peevologist's prescriptions to anyone without savere math dysfunction).
They certainly bother me!
When English is used well, it can seamlessly transport the thoughts of the writer directly into the reader's mind. When I read, each mistake is like a little hiccup, dragging me back into the real world and interrupting the flow of the story.
I know some people are dyslexic, some are writing in their non-native language, and some simply went to rotten schools, and we have to make allowances for them. But word processing programs now have wonderful spell and grammar checkers, often identifying many of the faults above. It is easy than it's ever been for writers with those problems to produce good work.
Sure, some writers really don't care if their work is liked and admired, but for any writer who does, getting the English right is the first step towards writing a good story.
What she said
However, where there is direct speech then it is important that the speech matches the 'speaker'. My daughter-in-law often uses "them" where "those" is correct...
Me "Would you like some help?"
Her "Yes, carry them dishes to the table, please".
Whilst I am being picky, mangled sentences also interrupt my 'suspension of belief', my "flow" as Charlotte puts it, and that also diminishes my pleasure; and a few authors have been told as much. But very privately. It is not something for public censure.
In fact, given that few of the authors here write for their crust (whether it be fiction, or for instance technical or legal stuff) the standard is generally very high compared to some other fiction sites, including those sites belonging to 'authors' who are trying to make a living from their work.
A number of names recur here as editors/proofers; more power to their collective elbows.
Xi
Sound and spelling of homophones
Unfortunately your example
If you can handle 'it's/its', 'your/you're', 'there/their/they're', when listening, why is it such a big deal when people make a typing error?
doesn't work for someone like me.
English is not my first language. I read it mostly by the spelling, not by the sound, and 'wrong' homophones always interrupt my reading flow.
Martina
Pretty good but
But the simple rule offered for number 11 is not quite right.
It should be "Fewer is only for things that can be counted and not even all of them." Full stop.
There really is no rule about how to use less except that if it is something that can be counted and fewer sounds better, use fewer. The classic "Ten items or less" on supermarket signs is an example of false grammatical criticism; there's nothing wrong with less in that context. Fewer might be more precise but it is not more correct.
Less really does not have any restrictions, it can be used in almost all cases where fewer can be used as well as places fewer cannot be used. Fewer seems more precise and more emphatic in many places but if fewer can be used it doesn't mean that less cannot.
Less is for things that can be measured; fewer for things that can be counted; but counting is a form of measuring. Don't use less if it would cause confusion that would be avoided by using fewer. I can't think of an example.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I Couldn't Convince...
...the people I was talking to at the time, but it seems to me that although "10 or fewer items" is correct, "10 items or less" works also, with "less" being interpreted as "less merchandise than that", rather than a number.
The word sequence is important there; "10 items or fewer" doesn't seem to be proper syntax if "fewer" is modifying the earlier "items". IMO, "less" can be treated as a collective noun in that context -- not modifying anything, just part of the compound subject: "items" and "less" as equal alternatives.
It's all about syntax: "10 or less items" would be "wrong", since "less" there does modify "items".
Eric
You missed it
You missed my point entirely. You are citing a rule in English that exists only in a squishy state and is not hard and fast. :)
The real rule of English as it is used (not as described by a few people with tin ears) is "Less is the general case involving measures, fewer is the specific case involving numbers and is usually preferred where it can be used." Use fewer for greater precision and to avoid confusion when speaking of numbers but you can use less if it sounds better or is concise and clear enough for your purpose.
In the case of "10 or less items" I would agree that fewer sounds better. But less is not wrong because it can't modify numbers, it can. Less is not as felicitous because fewer is more precise and sounds better due to numbers being involved.
Perhaps English usage is moving to a state where less is not used for numbers at all, but it hasn't gotten there by a long distance.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
English is as she is spoke
I am with Erin on this. As she says "10 items or less" is neither "wronger" nor "righter". It is simply better, and probably the best in context. In passing I note that it also pushes the envelope of the generally accepted practice on writing numbers. But it is concise and clear, and thus to my mind the most fit for purpose. And that is probably why it has entered the language. It exists; it is used; it works; whether you like it or not.
I am probably in that part of the bell curve of "fewer" versus "less" usage, where "fewer" is used more punctiliously; but that is my private choice in what I say or write. I generally care little about others' usage as long as it is not ungrammatical and conveys its meaning clearly and concisely. There are many authorial solecisms far worse than having your "less"/"fewer" boundary incongruent with that of your reader. And can you presuppose that all readers are the same?
Xi
As many of the authors I edit for may attest ...
"English As She Is Spoke" is an excellent phrase, as many people do not speak grammatically, at least, not all the time.
While I often correct most of the grammar in stories, I try to make sure the narrative is correct, but often mention that my corrections to dialog do not necessarily need to be accepted, particularly the younger the speaker is.
In fact, at times, I have suggested that one or more characters use incorrect grammar, jut as many people do. But if that is done, it needs to be consistent, within limitations.
To really do it right, the same character may use better or worse grammar, depending on the context.
A teen may speak very differently depending on whether they are just among peers, talking to parents, ( who may or may not use correct grammar themselves ), or to teachers or other authority figures who always use correct grammar.
The problem with doing this, is it may be necessary to create some sort of file to keep track of which character uses what type of grammatical mistakes, and for stories here, that may be overkill.
I admit to not doing it much myself, except when dealing with 'kidspeak' or 'toddlerese' in my very young characters. Luckily, since most of those in my stories are actual people, I can ask them to look over my version and make changes to the way they think they would say things.
Holly
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
teachers always use correct...
If only! I have corrected more teachers than bear counting!
As for the character speech, my characters almost all use colloquialisms, and all sound very much different, and I don't really bother tracking any of it in a file... Other people might not have my head for character voices though.
Abigail Drew.
There may be exceptions, but you need to know what you're doing
For example in lesson 11. "Sonia has fewer incentives to do what I say." While the idea of countable and not countable is a good general rule, neither example refers to specific numbers.
Or perhaps the example needs improvement. What is wrong with saying, "Robert has written less poetry since he got a real job?"
The key is 'less' is an adverb, modifying the verb [has less], where 'few{er}' is an adjective, modifying the noun [fewer poems].
But then that takes us to the point of knowing the rules and which you can bend and which you can break.
Janet
Mistress of the Guild of Evil [Strawberry] Blonde Proofreaders
To be or not to be... ask Schrodinger's cat.
Rumor has it...
...that while she no longer sells sea shells at the sea shore, she at least continues to make a proper cup of coffee in a copper coffee pot; and all that while the quick red foxes having yet to cease jumping over the lazy brown dogs, aye?
Love, Andrea Lena