|
I've long been a fan of proper grammar and diction. I've come up with a good grammar trick that virtually explains all of the tricky words in the English language - namely: their vs there vs they're, your vs you're vs yore, and its vs it's, which I will refer to as matches or match-ups down below. I wanted to share this because most of the write-ups on the website have incorrect usages in them, and it is somewhat embarrassing. The real beauty of this trick is that it's so easy to embed it into your thinking that you can do it automatically, without any real thought.
For each of those three matches, if the word features an apostrophe, separate the word into its two distinct parts. Apostrophes, after all, should imply a contraction (ignore possessives). If it's a contraction, you can separate it into two words and the sentence would still make sense. "If it is a contraction, you can separate it into two words and the sentence would still make sense." "For each of those three matches, if the word features an apostrophe, separate the word into it is two distinct parts." - See? This one makes no sense, but the previous one makes complete sense. If I'd used an apostrophe in that first sentence, I would have used it incorrectly. This should take precedence over possessive usages automatically, but it should be obvious otherwise when to use an apostrophe for a possessive usage.
This largely works for the other two match-ups as well, though they have an extra case in them that uglifies them a bit. First, their vs there vs they're. You can do the same thing - separate into two separate words if you have an apostrophe. "They're fighting for the right to bargain for their benefits." - "They are fighting for the right to bargain for their benefits." It makes sense that way. "They're fighting for the right to bargain for they're benefits." - "They are fighting for the right to bargain for they are benefits." That doesn't make so much sense at all. For their vs there, just remember that there is spelled similarly to where, which is exactly what it's describing (what it is describing). "Where is that little bastard? He's over there." That leaves only their to be used for other times, such as, "That's their plan?! We gotta get outta here!"
My rule for your vs you're vs yore is a bit funnier, I think. Remove the apostrophe and make two words - that still works fine, but how to decide between your and yore? Easy: Yore is never used. Ever. Not even in the days of yore was the term yore ever used. Boo yah.
Sorry for the long first post. Do any of you have any other grammar tricks to help people out? Let me know in the comments.
 
|
Germany2896 Posts
I think most people know which one is right. It's typically not a mistake foreigners make, but one sloppy native speakers make. Becuz u can't be bothered w/ spelling.
|
On February 23 2011 22:49 MasterOfChaos wrote:
I think most people know which one is right. It's typically not a mistake foreigners make, but one sloppy native speakers make. Becuz u can't be bothered w/ spelling.
The man has got a point. I'm not a native speaker but I know which one to use in where. I think most mistakes happen when you're trying to be quick or, most likely, when you can't be bothered to actually get it right. Pretty much like the "D T or DT" in Dutch.
Useful trick nevertheless, it's similar to what I used learning English.
Now do Who or Whom 
|
I don't think that's grammar.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
As has been said, it's not so much a case of not knowing which is which as it is a simple typing error. I don't know if it's this way for most people, but my typing is completely automatic. I don't think about spelling or grammar when I type, I simply think of a sentence and my fingers make the sentence appear on screen :p While very comfortable, it occasionally allows errors to sneak in, for example, the other day in the cricket thread I kept on typing batsment instead of batsmen, because "ment" is a common affix. Same goes with these "grammar" errors you mention, occasionally I'll read over a comment I made a while back and I'll see a "your" instead of "you're", not because I don't know the difference, but simply because I typed it without thinking.
That said, I don't think the newsposts have you're/your or their/they're/there errors very often, although I do occasionally see it's/its errors. It's/Its is just more difficult to pick up in editing than the others.
|
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped.
|
Yea, I pretty much know what to use because of what you said; if I ever have problems, I always check if there's a verb or something in there (that's shortened) by separating it. Now it's so ingrained in my mind that I almost don't have to check/think about it when writing.
The problem for native speakers is this, I think:
It has to do with the fact that most foreigners learn to write/speak at the same time, so they are more aware of the meaning and difference of "it's" and "its". Native speakers, on the other hand, usually first hear the words and link them together because they sound almost the same and only then learn to write them. So when they're actually learning to write they've become so accustomed to equating them that they have trouble to differentiate between them.
|
You'd be surprised how many people ( with English as their first language) actually say "your" instead of "You're" on facebook, such as "Your so cute", "Your retarded" (ironic, uh?).
|
On February 23 2011 23:13 NeoLearner wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2011 22:49 MasterOfChaos wrote:
I think most people know which one is right. It's typically not a mistake foreigners make, but one sloppy native speakers make. Becuz u can't be bothered w/ spelling. The man has got a point. I'm not a native speaker but I know which one to use in where. I think most mistakes happen when you're trying to be quick or, most likely, when you can't be bothered to actually get it right. Pretty much like the "D T or DT" in Dutch. Useful trick nevertheless, it's similar to what I used learning English. Now do Who or Whom
To understand who and whom, you have to be able to find the subject of the sentence reliably and/or be readily familiar with pronoun usage (he, him, his etc.).
The "hard" way to do it for a native speaker is to use the subject vs. object idea. If the thing in question (the who or whom) is the subject, it's generally correct to use "who".
e.g. Who is there?
+ Show Spoiler [More Who] +
There are more complicated examples of this too.
e.g. It was Tim who found the trick.
The most basic sentence structure of the above: "It found."
It = subject
also Tim = It (it was Tim)
also who = Tim
therefore who = subject - so "who" is correct usage here.
If the thing in question is an object, then it's generally correct to use "whom".
e.g. Man: I'm asking for <garbled>. Woman: You're asking for whom?
+ Show Spoiler [More Whom] +
A preposition (into, above, for, of etc.) is a sure sign that "whom" is correct. In fact, if you understand German grammar, you can pretty much think "whom = Dative case".
The easy way to do it for a native speaker is to use personal pronoun replacement. Native speakers almost always use pronouns correctly since they're so commonly spoken correctly.
If you don't know whether it's "who" or "whom" replace it with "he" or "him" and see which one sounds right.
e.g. <x> called me? --> He called me. vs. Him called me. --> <x> must be "Who"
e.g. I'm looking at <x>? --> I'm looking at he. vs. I'm looking at him. --> <x> must be "whom"
I'm not sure how readily pronouns are understood by a non-native speaker so I'm not sure if that would be easier or not.
+ Show Spoiler [More Details] +
"Whoever" and "whomever" actually are a little bit different and more confusing. You can't do the personal pronoun replacement on them and get the correct answer each time.
e.g. I'm looking for <x> placed this here. --> I'm looking for <him>... --> but the answer is "whoever", not "whomever".
Basically if there's a lower-order verb somewhere in the sentence that isn't an infinitive, you need a sort of lower-order subject for it. So the analysis for the above sentence would be:
I'm looking for <x> placed this here.
"I'm looking." - but there is also "placed" so find a "subject" for it.
He placed this here. vs. Him placed this here --> He is correct --> whoever must be correct.
|
Never use the word 'who,' and never have that problem. And it's the lazy people who don't give a damn that make these mistakes. There are few mistakes that people make that they don't know. The only ones I think of are subject-verb relationships (as in verb tenses) and bad word choices.
|
On February 24 2011 05:47 Blisse wrote:
Never use the word 'who,' and never have that problem. And it's the lazy people who don't give a damn that make these mistakes. There are few mistakes that people make that they don't know. The only ones I think of are subject-verb relationships (as in verb tenses) and bad word choices.
I laughed so hard.
On topic, I think very few people who confuse homonyms actually care. Most people don't give a damn what whom means, or when to use their. Those who do care usually already know.
|
On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped.
How is "your" and "you're" a homophone? They sound as different as they're written.
What pissess me off the most right now is the "would of" and "should of" in place of "would have/would've and should have/should've".
And by far the hardest thing for many people when it comes to English grammar would be deciding between using "a" or "an" before a word (eg. a dog, a plane, an antler, an equinox etc.). The basic rule here is that you put "a" before words that start with a consonant and "an" before words that start with a vowel.
There are some exceptions here though, because you'll be putting "an" before words that start with a consonant but which sound as they'd start with a vowel when spoken (eg. an herb).
|
On March 22 2011 00:57 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped. How is "your" and "you're" a homophone? They sound as different as they're written. What pissess me off the most right now is the "would of" and "should of" in place of "would have/would've and should have/should've". And by far the hardest thing for many people when it comes to English grammar would be deciding between using "a" or "an" before a word (eg. a dog, a plane, an antler, an equinox etc.). The basic rule here is that you put "a" before words that start with a consonant and "an" before words that start with a vowel. There are some exceptions here though, because you'll be putting "an" before words that start with a consonant but which sound as they'd start with a vowel when spoken (eg. an herb).
Your and You're are definately homophones. Please record the difference if you claim otherwise. Also a/an is simple. Just like you say, it depends on the pronunciation of the next word. And since the h in herb isn't silent in Brittish english, a better example would be "an LP" (for those old enough to remember what that is).
|
United States4126 Posts
The ones that irk me the most when I see the mistake are your vs you're and what Manit0u just said.
Your is relatively easy as it denotes possession of something. For example, something along the lines of "your dumb" is commonly seen on the internet. No, I do not own a dumb. I don't think anyone can ever own a dumb. Clearly this is a case for "you're" to be used. "You are dumb."
W/Sh/Could of, is one of the mistakes that people ignorantly make because it sounds right.
|
On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped.
I don't know if I would go so far as to call every single person who makes a grammatical error a homophone
|
On March 22 2011 01:43 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped. I don't know if I would go so far as to call every single person who makes a grammatical error a homophone
A homophone is a pair of words that are pronounced the same way. It's not an insult.
|
I think you missed the joke.
|
I never even heard of 'yore'
On March 22 2011 03:34 XXGeneration wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 01:43 floor exercise wrote:On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped. I don't know if I would go so far as to call every single person who makes a grammatical error a homophone A homophone is a pair of words that are pronounced the same way. It's not an insult.
LOL. It's a joke.
|
On March 22 2011 01:10 Hittegods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2011 00:57 Manit0u wrote:On February 24 2011 00:24 Scorch wrote:
I've barely ever seen foreigners make those mistakes. It's almost exclusively the native speakers who use the words seemingly interchangeably because they are homophones. It's annoying and makes people look dumber than they are, but it can't be helped. How is "your" and "you're" a homophone? They sound as different as they're written. What pissess me off the most right now is the "would of" and "should of" in place of "would have/would've and should have/should've". And by far the hardest thing for many people when it comes to English grammar would be deciding between using "a" or "an" before a word (eg. a dog, a plane, an antler, an equinox etc.). The basic rule here is that you put "a" before words that start with a consonant and "an" before words that start with a vowel. There are some exceptions here though, because you'll be putting "an" before words that start with a consonant but which sound as they'd start with a vowel when spoken (eg. an herb). Your and You're are definately homophones. Please record the difference if you claim otherwise.
Well, in "your" it starts with "yo" while in "you're" it starts with "yoo". It's pretty distinguishable in my opinion (you can clearly hear "you" in "you're", while it sounds nothing like regular "you" in "your". "yor" vs "yoo~r").
Edit: And you're right about the "herb". It really seems that the proper British pronounciation is with the non-silent "h", but I have yet to see a person (not even live, in a movie would do just fine) actually use it this way instead of "'erb".
|
On February 23 2011 22:18 WolfgangSenff wrote: My rule for your vs you're vs yore is a bit funnier, I think. Remove the apostrophe and make two words - that still works fine, but how to decide between your and yore? Easy: Yore is never used. Ever. Not even in the days of yore was the term yore ever used. Boo yah.
That's a pretty funny rule for "yore." I approve.
But man I'm going to be honest and say that I don't approve of grammar protips in general. I say this as a graduate student in English and an instructor of college composition courses. Knowing "grammar" just doesn't help you write better. It doesn't improve your expression, your style, your argument, your nothing. I'll throw out some quotes from a grammar studies meta-review that was published in College English:
DeBoer (1959)
The impressive fact is... that in all these studies, carried out in places and at times far removed from each other, often by highly experienced and disinterested investigators, the results have been consistently negative so far as the value of grammar in the improvement of language expression is concerned.
Strom (1960)
Direct methods of instruction, focusing on writing activities and the structuring of ideas, are more efficient in teaching sentence structure, usage, punctuation, and other related factors than are such methods as nomenclature drill, diagramming, and rote memorization of grammatical rules.
Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, Schoer (1963)
In view of the widespread agreement of research studies based upon many types of students and teachers, the conclusion can be stated in strong and unqualified terms: the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible impact or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in composition, even a harmful effect on improvement in writing.
Sherwin (1969)
Instruction in formal grammar is an ineffective way to help students achieve proficiency in writing.
Hartwell (1985)
More recent summaries of research--by Elizabeth I. Haynes, Hillary Taylor Holbrook, and Marcia Farr Whiteman--support similar conclusions. Indirect evidence for this position is provided by surveys reported by Betty Bamberg in 1978 and 1981, showing that time spent in grammar instruction in high school is the least important factor, of eight factors examined, in separating regular from remedial writers at the college level.
Now you might wonder: why there isn't even more recent research on this red-hot topic? Well, aside from the overwhelming consensus on the matter and the desire of researchers to "move on to more interesting areas of inquiry" (Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, 228), you also have the fact that grammar studies are increasingly under the purview of linguistics programs.
But let me assure you they have fared no better there.
Basically the problem is that the word "grammar" as it is commonly understood corresponds to nothing in reality. There is no set of rules that govern how a language functions or that delineates between correct and incorrect expressions of that language. There are patterns in language, yes, but the relationship of those patterns to traditional ideas about the structures of language are a bit more complex than a grammar-based approach admits. Our beloved eight-parts-of-speech grammar got its start in Greek metaphysics, and that's essentially what it is: a metaphysical assertion that's highly useful in certain strict, scholarly, and self-aware avenues of inquiry but that should not be used as guide to one's everyday conduct otherwise.
TL/DR:
Don't give out grammar tips.
The grammar you believe in doesn't exist.
Grammatical pet peeves should be euthanized.
also:
Yes, Manit0u, the words "your" and "you're" are homophones for a massive number of native English speakers. And, no, this does not reflect poorly on their intelligence. People pronounce things differently, and that's cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
