Some common departures from STANDARD ENGLISH

I went for to get up out of bed. I have such a head ache. Now, as the principle of this football team, who am I going to pick as my next headcoach? Is Art Shell available? The principal of the matter is to pick the right yesman.

Also, pepper your speech and writing with clichés. When work is going to the cats, say, "Come on, folks, we are at third and forever", or when the boss is heading out the door at 3.30, turn to your workmate and say, 'QB sneak' loud enough for the boss to hear.

And the next time your on the free way and some guy cut's you up in his SUV, don't scream at him, 'you white bast*ard', because you wouldn't bring his colour in to (not into) it if he was black.

You all have a nice day, now.

higher than high wrote:

picking nits wrote:

“Comprise” is a synonym of “include,” but is misused so frequently (including by the Supreme Court) that your best bet is not to use the word at all.

How is it misused? I often use it as a synonym of "composed" or "made up of". Are you saying that is wrong? Here are the top three Google searches for "definition comprise" and they all say that meaning is correct.

That is fine. There is nothing wrong with the word comprise. Where people go wrong is saying "comprised OF". That is what is non-standard.

For example, the United Kingdom comprises England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.

It is not comprised of. It "includes" those four places, it does not "include of" them. The more you know, I guess.

Always good to improve your language usage. Makes you clearer. But as the original poster said, there are always improvements to be made!

I could care less.

This from a guy who starts sentences with "and". Technically correct? Possibly. Would I like one of my students to write a college essay that way? NO!

andpickingnitsis slow wrote:

This from a guy who starts sentences with "and". Technically correct? Possibly. Would I like one of my students to write a college essay that way? NO!

Point taken. However, the OP also had a number of contractions, which I also wouldn't [oops!] want to see in a college essay. I guess it was a question (somewhat) of writing for the situation and the audience--which is not to say that making those *style* choices is the same as choosing to spell in non-standard ways.

As to the use of "comprise": my point was that the meaning of the word is shifting; that some people are likely to be put off by your use of the word, whether "correct" or not; and that therefore the word should be avoided in important situations. There are plenty of synonyms available: if you mean "include," say it; if you mean "composed of," say that.

i wish people would remember the difference between further and farther:

"i will not speak to your further until you move farther away."

picking nits wrote:

Point taken. However, the OP also had a number of contractions, which I also wouldn't [oops!] want to see in a college essay. I guess it was a question (somewhat) of writing for the situation and the audience--which is not to say that making those *style* choices is the same as choosing to spell in non-standard ways.

As to the use of "comprise": my point was that the meaning of the word is shifting; that some people are likely to be put off by your use of the word, whether "correct" or not; and that therefore the word should be avoided in important situations. There are plenty of synonyms available: if you mean "include," say it; if you mean "composed of," say that.

Nothing wrong with contractions. To be avoided in overly formal stuff, but they are standard English and absolutely fine to use in a situation like this.

I have never heard of anyone put off by the use of the word comprise. I have heard of plenty of people who get put off by "comprised of". My supervisor told me about how in a doctoral thesis viva (defense), one of the examiners was grilling the doctoral candidate, not for the quality of his argument, but because he said "comprised of", which bothered this examiner quite a bit.

I write how using the most logical conventions, at least in my view. And if I have to keep to a style, I do. But I'm adamant about my punctuation being outside of quotes when not a part of the quote! Only damn this UK country does right. :)

White trash haplologies like "prolly."

I'm so glad to know that somebody else enjoys taking the role of Grammar Police. I thought I was the only one left. My wife knows that I often yell at the TV set, or radio, when some CBS or Fox announcer misuses the language. It's amazing what the so-called East Coast elite (and Atlanta elite: CNN) think passes muster as grammatical. Or syntactical, for that matter.

Comprise has two meanings, as a previous poster noted. "This list is comprised of all the runners who...." is correct, as far as I know, but so is "This list comprises all the runners who....." Synonym for "composed" in the first case; synonym for "includes" in the second. (Or former case and latter case.)

How about this: "WW II lasted from 1941-1945." Shouldn't that be "...from 1941 to 1945"? A subtlety.

In the North, people say, "Either I'll do this, or I'll do this."

In the South, people say, "I'll do this, or either this."

In the North, people say, "I might be able to do that."

In the South: "I might could do that." I'm not sure that deserves to be called ungrammatical. I think it's just a regional variant.

I'll think of more solecisms later on. And idiolects.

The period or comma (at the end of a quotation) goes BEFORE the ending quotation mark:

CORRECT: Joe said, "I ran today."

INCORRECT: Joe said, "I ran today".

you = 1 person

y'all = 2 to 5 people

all y'all = 6 or more people

KudzuRunner wrote:

In the North, people say, "I might be able to do that."

In the South: "I might could do that." I'm not sure that deserves to be called ungrammatical. I think it's just a regional variant.

I'll think of more solecisms later on. And idiolects.

That would be a double modal, and typically is only part of the spoken language. You're right that it is not ungrammatical, but it's not exactly standard, either. Even highly educated folk in the south use double modals, and it only took me a few years of living in the South before I found myself using such a construction unintentionally.

One that gets me is "eluded to". Malmo eluded to the fact that white trash haplologies annoy him.

Andrew Jackson once remarked that he had no respect for a man who only knew one way to spell a word.

How widely spread is the use of the double modal? I grew up in Virginia and never heard it. When I lived in NC (just outside of Raleigh) everybody used it. When I used it one day I knew it was time to move.

*widespread

KudzuRunner wrote:

How about this: "WW II lasted from 1941-1945." Shouldn't that be "...from 1941 to 1945"? A subtlety.

another subtlety: WW II lasted from 1939 to 1945.

sorry, couldn't resist.

MENSA room wrote:

This thread is rediculous.

It's ridiculous, I've never seen that spelt correctly online.

Then sit back and peep my scenerio. Oops, my bad, that's my scenario.