"A lot of koreans are..." is perfectly valid grammar, and it makes the ridiculous assertiveness of the OP look dumb as hell.
"A lot of milk was left in the box". OK, because milk is a non-counting noun "A lot of koreans were left in the building". OK, because "koreans" is a counting noun, just like you would say "A lot of books were left in the bag", you don't say "A lot of books was left in the bag".
Saying "A lot of koreans is" is about as dumb as "A lot of milk are".
The octopus discussion is dumb as well. Yes, octopus is originally a greek word, which is why octopodes is a correct plural. So is octopuses. And so is octopi. Why? Because while it's originally a greek word, it's an English word now, where octopuses is the correct plural. Octopi, while technically incorrect, is used by so many people so frequently that it's become acceptable. A good dictionary will list all 3 plural forms as correct, because grammar doesn't define language, language defines grammar.
Since the context of this thread is for esports broadcasts to establish "legitimacy in the eyes of the world", I genuinely wonder if TV broadcasts - presumably the standard esports broadcasts are measured against - use the "a lot of [plural] is" variant.
I laughed @ OP complaining about "A lot of koreans are". Sorry buddy, you lose this one no matter how many dictionary references that you had to look up yourself and didn't know before you can point to. Anyone who says "A lot of koreans is" should be slapped twice and be told to go outside for a change lol
Tobberoth said it best with the comparisons. You are wrong on this one lol
I like how all three of your blogs are a you vs the world type deal where you try to argue about how everyone else is wrong and you're right.
Being right is cool, but you don't have to be right 100% of the time. Just accept that "a lot of koreans is" is NOT right, no matter how you spin it, for reasons which have been elucidated over and over by various posters (I think Tobberoth did it best) in this thread.
"Hyun's so much better than him" is correct. "Hyun's so much better than he is" is also correct. "Hyun's so much better than he" is wrong.
"A lot of Koreans are ___" is correct/incorrect depending on context.
"A lot of Koreans are doing this new build" is correct because Koreans is the subject while "a lot of" is saying how many there are.
"A lot of Koreans is 10 Koreans" is correct because "lot" is the subject and the "of koreans" is describing the lot. Similar to how someone else pointed out "A pride of lions is ___"
Regarding Aren't vs Ain't, the proper way to say it would be I'm not if you insist on using a contraction, but everyone says aren't regardless.
On July 21 2013 13:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: I do, every time I hear 'quick' being used as an adverb my brain twitches sideways in my skull, it just sounds silly.
Why do you critique the community so heavily, yet have no problem being lazy with your own writing? Surely you know that neither of those two commas are correct, as you're separating three independent clauses. You need semi-colons or periods. And those mistakes are obviously not the only ones; heck, even in the first line of your original post, you write "common place" instead of "commonplace" or "common-place". Your first paragraph is just one big run-on sentence too. We all make mistakes or are lazy sometimes, right?
It just seems a little hypocritical. Surely you should be consistent with your scrutiny, and even apply it to yourself?
Just don't use any dangling participles!
Well, half of the things talked about in the grammar Nazi video including the things you talked about aren't grammatical errors, they are stylistic 'errors', a big difference. The production rules of English grammar cannot derive them being wrong. They simply make text unclear or 'hard to read' on a subjective level. A dangling participle most certainly is not a grammatical error, it's a stylistic one leading to ambiguities, but guess what, the English language is full of ambiguities anyway.
...What? Dangling participles are definitely grammatical errors:
"A dangling modifier is an ambiguous grammatical construct" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier)
"The grammatical problem here..." (http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/WritingGuide/10dangpt.htm)
"They then end up with what’s known as a dangling participle, as in this grammatically incorrect statement: ..." (http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/dangling-participles)
And even if dangling participles weren't *grammatical* errors per se, using them and creating run-on sentences and lacking proper punctuation do not become justified. You learn these things in English class as a child. People often make mistakes when speaking or talking because they're more focused on the context and substance of their conversation, rather than the absolute correctness of their speech. That's life. Sometimes it makes you cringe, but be critical of yourself before being critical of others.
You don't know what the difference between a grammatical and a stylistic error is at all do you? Saying it's an ambiguous grammatical construct has nothing to do with whether or not the error itself is grammatical or stylistic.
I disagree: the problem with dangling modifiers is that they are not ambiguous. There are grammatical rules for determining the subject of a modifier. In the case of a dangling modifier, the subject determined by the rules of syntax conflicts with the subject demanded by the meaning.
On July 21 2013 10:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: ".. makes you seem pretentious to educated people, and 'octopodes' makes uneducated people not even know what you're talking about."
EPT
