February 28, 2006
Keys To Successful Adverbial Argument-Mongering
Sir, you'll just have to.... oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Rand.
There's a point you want to get across. You want to use the adverb "objectively" in order to stress how strong your point is, buttressed across time and space by statistical studies and empirical evidence so damning that only the most [mouthbreathing reactionary / disingenuous leftist] could ignore it. It's well-known that the use of the word provides its own built-in cache of respectability that can be transferred to your argument, in that some of Ayn Rand's lifeforce is unlocked when the word is typed. But how and when to format it for emphasis?
-- Objectively (unformatted): This shows a real confidence in your argument, but unwary, overburdened readers might miss its inclusion. Better throw in one of those statistical studies.
-- Objectively (italicized): Hey you! Read this assertion! It's really good! 81% chance that evidence needs to be cited.
-- Objectively (underlined): This sounds a little more pleading that italics, and speaks to an assertion that now only has a 50-50 chance of needing an example that may or may not exist.
-- OBJECTIVELY (all caps): You're pretty much preaching to the converted, who are unlikely to request any back-up... probably a 15% chance of being called on it, and only by a troll of a diametrically opposed political viewpoint.
-- 
(Thanks to Guy Smiley for the picture) You are now writing a parody post on the misuse of the word "objectively."
As you can see, the amount of emphasis used is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence needed and directly proportional to the likelihood that you (a) should have used the word "subjectively" or (b) have described a phenomenon or assertion for which there is no known objective evidence. Previous, pithy observation on this subject here (item 2).
Will there be more in the series? Which types of linguistic or grammatical misuse push your buttons (please don't say sentence fragments)? I like comments!
Whenever I see an interrobang I just quit reading right there.
Posted by: doghouse riley at February 28, 2006 12:01 PMUse of "infer" when "imply" is called for. Some people seem to think that "infer" sounds smarter, and so use it inappropriately - thus proving that they are stupid. Remember this simple mnemonic - Jeff Gannon implies, Ken Mehlman infers.
Use of "literally" when it is exactly the opposite of what is intended: "I'm literally going to rip off your head with my bare hands and shit down your neck-hole!" No, you aren't. Everyone knows that one's neck-hole seals up in an involuntary, reflexive response immediately after one's head has been ripped off; thus, it is not possible to "literally" perform the above-described operation.
Also, I really hate the non-word "flammable." I ask you - would it really be such a bad thing if illiterate people in large numbers were incinerated on our highways simply because they erroneously believed that "inflammable" means "not flammable [sic]" rather than "capable of becoming inflamed," and so felt utterly free to collide with fuel tankers at freeway speed? I think not.
Posted by: rod at February 28, 2006 01:08 PMUse of "literally" when it is exactly the opposite of what is intended
That's easily the top of my list. I can still remember when Jim Gray interviewed Mateen Cleeves at the NCAA tournament, saying "Your teammates were literally feeding off you all night!" No, moron, they weren't. This wasn't the movie Alive.
I'm no mathlete, but the misuse of "exponentially" bugs me too. Unless the growth is literally exponential, they should say "rapidly" or something else.
Posted by: Otto Man at February 28, 2006 02:25 PMI always get a bug up my butt about misuse of "nauseous", as in: "That Denny's Triple Grand-Slam really made me nauseous." No, that Denny's Triple Grand-Slam made you nauseated, e.g. "afflicted by nausea". Although someone eating at Denny's could reasonably be called nauseous, e.g. "sickening to behold; inducing nausea".
Though, because language is an annoyingly living thing, the inappropriate usage of "nauseous" is so commonly misapplied that it's now become somewhat accepted as an alternative for "nauseated". A fact with which my wife loves to bludgeon me on a semi-regular basis.
Posted by: jpb at February 28, 2006 02:26 PMI second the misuse of literally. It makes me weep when I see it. Not literally.
The use of IMHO, LOL and all their bastard cousins in what had been, until that point, an intelligent and reasoned discussion.
People who use multiple exclamation points unironically. It makes you look like a coked-up 16 year-old.
And it's not a grammar point as such, but a little part of me dies every time someone misspells "definitely" as "definately."
Posted by: Tim at February 28, 2006 02:26 PM"Traditionally," a generic bogus-argument prop which can, depending on the type of b.s. needed, refer to the history of western civilization, the original menu at McDonalds, Princeton in the time of Alito, or how things were at home before the author's wife got fed up and left last week.
Posted by: kcb at February 28, 2006 02:30 PMThe popular use of the word 'tribe.'
Posted by: Roxanne at February 28, 2006 03:02 PMFor the good of the community (not "tribe"), I went back and found this piece from McSweeney's whence I stole the tone employed in my post (above). I note that two of my three peeves are also dealt with there, and better. I am now ashamed.
Posted by: rod at February 28, 2006 03:07 PMAnd it's not a grammar point as such, but a little part of me dies every time someone misspells "definitely" as "definately."
If we're going to open up the misspelling files, I am stunned by how many people think it's spelled "rediculous." and don't get me started on the forty incorrect variations of "hypocrisy" and "hypocrite."
Posted by: Otto Man at February 28, 2006 03:20 PMMsissplelnig raelyl pssiess em fof oto. Toto Nam
Nrobzinses, M'i snednig oyu a falmnig .ifg flei
It's amazing how many people transpose "than" and "then." As in, "better then" or "rather then." That's a dead giveaway that the writer doesn't read much, and when I was editing a lot of student writing a couple of years ago (in a journalism program, no less) that was epidemic.
And way too many people spell "losing" as "loosing" for it to always be just a type-o.
Posted by: TravisG at February 28, 2006 05:15 PMThere is a special place in hell for pundits that say "...but at the end of the day..."
Posted by: vachon at February 28, 2006 05:55 PMI'm getting tired of "meme" and "conflate."
Posted by: carson at February 28, 2006 06:01 PMThe series of subjectless, verbless sentences: Best. Post. Ever.
Drives. Me. Nuts.
Posted by: Twisty at February 28, 2006 09:28 PMWho vs. That.
The person who....
The antelope that...
and I am still trying to work out the intricacies of which vs. that. Someone help me out here.
and, of course, I think one generally sounds stupid when ending a sentence with a preposition, and one generally sounds pompous when one actually sorts the sentence out properly. You can't win.
Is this the basket we put the severed limbs in? (stupid)
Is this the basket in which we put the severed limbs? (pompous)
Treacherous language, English. Best to just grunt, point at one's penis and fling dung, what?
Posted by: patrick at February 28, 2006 10:52 PMHow about 'a whole nother...?'
How about split infinitives?
The passive voice could be addressed.
How about E.B. White saying, more or less, 'disregard these rules rather than writing anything barbarous.'
And for all of us in the bunched undies collective, there's The Language Instinct, by Steven Pinker. The book's a hoot, and includes several chapters of language police flaying. I gave a copy to a 'gorgeous means brightly colored, not pretty' policewoman (o.k., it was my Mom), but she didn't get it.
(And did McCartney really write 'And in this everchanging world in which we live in?' He always was more about tunes than words, wasn't he?)
And did McCartney really write 'And in this everchanging world in which we live in?'
When I heard that, I hoped that he said "But if this everchanging world in which we're living..." but I believe you are correct about the violation. The grammar panda should have shot him.
The grammar panda "would of" if he "could of."
Posted by: TravisG at March 1, 2006 08:09 AMI just added one to the ledger: for a while I've been stunned by the number of people who seriously think there is a phrase "for all intensive purposes," whatever the hell that could possibly mean. But yesterday I read a comment that included "for all EXtensive purposes."
The other form that I can see slowly dying is adjectives ending "ant." They're slowly becoming "ate." The first one I noticed was "dominant." Sports fans will say that LeBron was "dominate" last night. Man, you should of seen it. Supposably, he's only gonna get better.
jpb: "nauseous" is a new one for me.
Posted by: FlipYrWhig at March 1, 2006 09:27 AMWhat most tires me when I read are the indignant grammar police postings about "begs the question" or "the hoi polloi" which make all sorts of indignant bleatings and which in the authors' haste include a grammatical error which brings someone else to post to criticize the criticizing post.
Also, unless one is writing a doctoral thesis, one needs to go easy on the use of "vis a vis", "per se", and "x-cum-y".
Whine mode off.
Constructive mode enabled:
If you don't have a copy of Strunk & White's Elements of Style, buy one and read it at least once annually.
It is without peer; it is the best 100+ pages on writing ever.
"Its" and "it's." Hands down, the one that makes me irrationally insane. And it's everywhere! It's everywhere!
Posted by: MzNicky at March 1, 2006 09:46 AMBasically, the use of 'basically' at the start of every sentence drives me up the wall. Not literally.
In Britain it's popular to say one is 'disorientated' instead of 'disoriented'. I've railed against it for years but to no avail. They also think they're right to call it 'aluminium' instead of 'aluminum' but I know better.
There are different rules in Britain than America about the use of 'which' vs. 'that' but I haven't yet nailed them. I'll come back to you on that.
Posted by: mags at March 1, 2006 09:47 AM'Effect' used when 'affect' is the correct word.
'The pills effected the children badly.' It also annoys me when people write f&^$. Please don't let's start on apostrophes. Sorry, apostrophe's. Aargh, grrr.
My entire department is trying to be hip with the young'uns and has begun using numerals in place of short words in their text pages. For instance, "I need 2 go 2 store 4 pager batteries, R there any left in cabinet?" As the junior member of the department, I can do nothing besides bang my head on the wall.
Other pet peeves of mine include professional educators who use "curriculums" instead of "curricula", researchers who say "the data is" instead of "the data are", and ANYONE who uses the term "asinine", for any reason. I'm not sure why that last peeve exists, but I hate the word with a passion.
Posted by: trope at March 1, 2006 09:48 AMconflate
I'll stop saying it when people stop doing it. Not a moment before.
Posted by: Chris Clarke at March 1, 2006 09:48 AMfor all intensive purposes
That drives me nuts, too.
My favorite is one I end up regularly cleaning out of more than one work document: "antidotal evidence".
Posted by: Buffy at March 1, 2006 09:53 AM"Less" versus "fewer" is another personal bugaboo. "The express bus makes less stops."
Oh, and "decimate," especially when literal decimation would have been highly preferable to what actually happened.
Posted by: Lisa Cech at March 1, 2006 10:03 AMMore than vs. over
Over is a designation of space. The tree limb hangs over the driveway.
More than refers to quantity. I scored more than 15 points during the game.
Posted by: Editor-type at March 1, 2006 10:25 AMI've heard a couple people say regime when they meant regimen, as in "my hair care regime." I don't find this slip annoying so much as I find it terrifying. Who can forget the Aqua-Net coup of '87? That was not a pretty time, my friends, not a pretty time.
Posted by: Hissy Cat at March 1, 2006 10:25 AMI've seen my share of over-styled old ladies for whom "hair care regime" would be rather appropriate: hairdos that rule with an iron fist. They call it a hair helmet for a reason...
Posted by: FlipYrWhig at March 1, 2006 10:37 AMPatrick: Which refers primarily to things. It introduces NONESSENTIAL clauses (if you take the clause out, the sentence doesn't lose meaning):
That gun, which I bought on the street corner, will shortly be used to blow the head off of anybody who incorrectly uses an apostrophe anywhere within my range.
That refers to things. It can refer to persons, but only when a class or type of person is meant. That is restrictive; the clause that follows is ESSENTIAL to the meaning of the sentence:
He is the kind of knuckle-dragger that thinks "effect" and "affect" are the same in meaning.
Posted by: speedbudget at March 1, 2006 10:43 AMI hate to see penultimate misused. I especially hate to see it misused by geologists. The "pen" in penultimate is the same "pen" as in penecontemporaneous and peneplain, words that are common in geological jargon. Put two and two together people!
Posted by: Sylvanite at March 1, 2006 11:03 AMPeople who use "I" instead of "me" because they think it makes them appear more 'cultured'... "everything the president said convinced Mary and I that war was the best option". Grrrrr.
Posted by: sphex at March 1, 2006 11:06 AMAmen to the comment in which passive voice was mentioned. My sense of grammar outrage becomes even more outraged when this happened. And for some reason it happens all by itself, passively, you see, not because of any force that was exerted upon it by passivity.
Posted by: kactus at March 1, 2006 11:24 AMI hate when people use "your" in place of "you're". It's not "Your invited!"
Also, I hate the term vivisection. Am I on the island of Dr. Moreau? No, I am not. Am I cutting and pasting larvae together so they share hemolymph? No, I am not. Vivsection is not synonymous with "every single thing a scientist does in a lab ever". So unless you want a very graphic demonstration of vivisection when I graft your stupid head onto the body of a cow, shut the hell up.
Posted by: Nymphalidae at March 1, 2006 11:25 AMfor all intensive purposesThat drives me nuts, too.
My favorite is one I end up regularly cleaning out of more than one work document: "antidotal evidence".
I think these anecdotes are evidence of people who listen (to tv, to radio), rather than read. It is quite easy to hear words incorrectly--as evidenced by people who mangle song lyrics, for example--but when you read you learn how those words are supposed to be spelled. Posted by: kactus at March 1, 2006 11:29 AM
I'm with Twisty on the staccato, incomplete sentences. They remind me of Howard Cosell. "He. Could. Go. All. The. Way."
I find "to wit" annoying.
Posted by: JDC at March 1, 2006 11:37 AMCurrent spelling peeve: "loose" instead of "lose". Has it always been so commonly mistaken?
Grammar/diction mistake that I wish wasn't one: "How are you?" Response: "I'm good." I know, the correct response is "I'm well." Years of living in North Carolina have conditioned me otherwise.
But what I really cant stand are runon sentences and people who dont' know how to use punctuation its really a terrible problem Lynne Truss cant even fix it!!!
Posted by: SneakySnu at March 1, 2006 11:54 AMYou're absolutely right, kactus. When I went back to college a couple of years ago and worked as a copy editor for the student newspaper, I was shocked by the number of submissions we recieved from writers who obviously didn't read anything that had been edited, ever. Those phoenetic-type errors were rampant, and somewhat terrifying. Phrases such as "would of" or "for all intensive purposes" don't actually mean anything. I spoke to a couple of the students about those errors, and their attitude was that those mistakes weren't a big deal, because I understood what they meant.
Can you imagine wanting to be a writer -- particularly a journalist -- yet believe that language doesn't have a fixed meaning?
Posted by: TravisG at March 1, 2006 11:56 AMOK, OK, I'll stop with the "literally" and the "Best. Post. Ever." (which I usually do with a Boston accent, as in "Best. Post. Evah.")
Sheesh.
I hate misuse of the word "me," as in "Me and my husband went to the store," or "do you think you're better than me?"
Posted by: The Happy Feminist at March 1, 2006 12:00 PMThe misuse of "fewer" vs. "less" makes me grind my teeth, too. Politicians who say "less tax dollars" just sound stupid.
Posted by: jenofiniquity at March 1, 2006 12:06 PMI coulda sworn I'd fixed "phonetic." Whoops.
It annoys the crap out of me when people attempt to bolster a claim by describing something as being to or in "the extreme." For example, "that is a civil rights violation in the extreme." I mean, it either is or it isn't, but you sound like a whining teenager when you say that.
Posted by: TravisG at March 1, 2006 12:06 PMSometimes the mis-heard phrase actually turns out to make a sense of its own. My personal favorite is another sports example.
"Nomar has to get on track."
Nothing strange about that. But then there arose a mutant form...
"Nomar has to get untracked."
The whole thing depends on your opinion of the track. Is it good to be on track, because the track is like a _groove_; or is it bad to be on track, because the track is like a _rut_? Yet you can hear it either way and not misunderstand. Cool.
Posted by: FlipYrWhig at March 1, 2006 12:11 PMIt really bothers me when people misuse homynyms or similar sounding words (such as bear and bare, accept and except, affect and effect).
Misspellings, poor use of punctuation, and poor use of grammar in general also bother me, especially in a book. I am unable to continue reading a book that's been poorly edited.
Thanks for the explanation of when to use "which" and when to use "that". Sometimes the rules are so ingrained that it's hard to explain why one works and the other doesn't, and my kid always wants to know the exact rule.
It's a miracle that I have not yet joined the Secret Society of Grammar Police. Every now and then, I take my invitation out of the drawer and contemplate going over to the Dark Side of grammar enforcement.
Posted by: jodi at March 1, 2006 12:38 PM"Myself" used wrongly instead of "me", as in "You are requested to complete the enclosed form and return it to myself not later than Tuesday" instead of the shorter, friendlier, correct "Please fill in the form and send it back to me by Tuesday'.
It really gets my goat when people act stupid because they're trying to look clever.
Posted by: MissPrism at March 1, 2006 12:51 PMLots of good examples. I don't like the incorrect use of me/I (ferocious resistance can be encountered when pointing this one out), misuse of apostrophes or effect/affect.
I will take a stand for the poor old split infinitive. I understand that the rule is based on latin grammar, in which it is not possible to split an infinitive as it consists of a single word.
However, it has been OBJECTIVELY proven that the most annoying people in the world (literally) are those who use ghastly phrases like "for all intensive purposes" and "residence association".
Posted by: Sredni Vashtar at March 1, 2006 01:42 PMSredni: Those phrases make me nauseous. No, wait. I mean, they _are_ nauseous, and they nauseate me.
Posted by: FlipYrWhig at March 1, 2006 01:45 PMThere isn't much, grammatically, that bothers me apart from maybe mixing up its and it's and misusing literally when you really mean metaphorically. I do have little tolerance for cliches, though. Even though I use cliches myself, but I never said I wasn't a hypocrite.
Posted by: Metal Prophet at March 1, 2006 01:56 PMI'm grading student papers now, so am awash in wrong homonyms and apostrophe abuse (I recall these both being covered in my third-grade classes). But rather than belabor this point, I'll just go for an "I spells it like I hears it" error so common that it usually passes without notice: "cut the mustard"
If your mustard needs to be cut, then it needs to be thrown out.
Posted by: CafeSiren at March 1, 2006 02:50 PMOh, and if I hear one more person on NPR refer to something as "a perfect storm," I'm going to scream.
Posted by: CafeSiren at March 1, 2006 02:51 PMThe use of endemic to mean 'widely spread' instead of 'entirely limited to a particular area', has become epidemic.
Posted by: Aussie Liz at March 1, 2006 04:44 PMI've come to believe that the only important thing is getting the point across, which has reduced my blood pressure considerably. I still get a little ticked at misuse of 'begs the question,' though. If the speaker or writer is trying to be authoritative, though, they damn well better make sense - "literally," "objectively," "exponential," - these words mean something, dagnabit.
Oh - one more thing: Aluminum. That's the correct spelling, the one given to the element by its discoverer, Humphrey Davey. Adding the extra 'i' makes it fit in better with the other metals, but anyone who insists that there is only one right way to spell it better choose Davey's formulation or relinquish their snob cred.
Posted by: togolosh at March 1, 2006 04:53 PMOK. These are the rules of proper grammar.
1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (they're old hat)
6. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
7. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
8. Be more or less specific.
9. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
10. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
11. No sentence fragments.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalise.
15. Don't use no double negatives.
16. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
17. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
18. The passive voice is to be ignored.
19. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
20. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
21. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
22. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
I have often been disliked over the years and received much scorn for my intolerance of language abuse. I admit, I am no saint, but please don't make a sign reading, "egg's, 1.49" since you didn't tell us who spoke about the eggs, why do we need to know that someone somewhere uttered this peice of information? Since the words are not surrounded by other words from which we must differentiate the spoken, then what relevance the quotation marks? Oh, they are for emphasis. Quotation marks mean nothing, they are just decoration to get our attention. Also, the eggs don't own the 1.49 last I knew, eggs aren't able to possess anything or anyone, so kill the apostrophe!
The one that really irritates me: 'thru'. I was asked to edit a peice of writing and when I crossed this out and spelled it correctly; 'through' the said writer got all indignant and claimed that I just wasn't up on the latest changes in english. It was an abbreviation, didn't I understand? Sure jus lik this is an abbr. bekus i to dum to spel or ta think rite.
Posted by: Kate at March 1, 2006 05:59 PMOne can no longer pick from a selection. One can only cherry-pick.
To turn something around 180 degrees is to change it a lot! But turning something around 360 degrees is not twice as good as turning it around 180 degrees.
For some reason it bothers me to hear sacreligious, rather than sacrilegious.
I wish they would learn the difference between a cleavage and a bosom, and between a bosom and a breast.
I also wish they'd figure out the difference between ordinance and ordnance, and especially the difference between compliment and complement.
I maintain that "per capita" has a meaning, and it's not right to talk about a country with the highest number of people on death row per capita. Of them there can only be one each.
I strongly object to the use of mayhem for any little old disturbance. Mayhem is intentional dismemberment. There's certainly no such thing as merry mayhem.
Why does list always have to be paired with laundry? If somebody has a list of complaints, such as this one, it's not a laundry list, it's a complaint list.
Posted by: Pat Hartman at March 1, 2006 09:08 PMYou know what I hate? Grammar rules that serve no purpose except to make the language more complicated.
First of all, who the fuck decided we shouldn't dangle prepositions? Doing it makes english clearer, for god's sake.
Also, I'm not a fan of the fewer/less further/farther nazis. Who the hell cares which one you use? Give me one example of a sentence in which the meaning isn't perfectly clear from the context. It doesn't cause the least confusion to make them synonyms, so why not make it official?
I feel the same about then/than, especially because there isn't a good mnemonic device to remember the difference.
Posted by: Christopher at March 1, 2006 09:12 PMPat, can you explain "per capita"? I didn't understand the problem with your example, except that the death sentence is barbaric, and is not used in any civilized country.
Also, Christopher, I wish I could relax like you. Every time I see the sign in the supermarket that says "10 items or less", I think "FEWER!".
Also, since my last post, I have read two news stories about the bird flu becoming endemic. There's now a pandemic of the wrong use of endemic.
Posted by: Aussie Liz at March 1, 2006 10:04 PM"Mortified" when they mean "terrified" makes a clicking noise in my head.
Posted by: Keren at March 1, 2006 11:05 PMWell, this isn't an every-day locution, but "whence". Whence kind of stands on its own. It doesn't need "from". I remember a song that included the line "I don't know where from whence it came...." Positively encringifying.
Oh. That reminds me: I know language changes all the time; it's just what happens, and you can't stop it even if you beat on it with a shovel, like that guy did to the tide. But I don't like it when nouns and verbs collide, and then mutate.
I remember a private investigator at one job I had. He'd type up his reports about how he'd "statementized Witness A". Criminy. Is it so much trouble to write: "I took the statement of Witness A"?
And why do we have to gift each other at Chrismukkaa? I guess it saves a word (gift vs. give presents).
I don't suppose it impacts the general discourse...OMG, no, there it is again: impact. Something can have an impact, certainly. But something impacting? I can't enverbitize it. It *describes* something. An impacted tooth. Impacted fecal matter. (I know it's been used as a verb for many many years. But I don't have to like it.)
Posted by: larkspur at March 2, 2006 12:07 AMRe: gift as a verb, you'll still find people who dislike "lease" as a verb, because there already is a perfectly good verb for that situation: "let."
Posted by: FlipYrWhig at March 2, 2006 12:47 AMAussie Liz,
I like to think the supermarket signmaker just misheard, since it really should read "10 Items--or Else."
Posted by: emjay at March 2, 2006 02:15 AMthen there are the vague colloquial sayings people use with opposite meanings; take one example: panned out.
I hear the term originated with the gold rush, but that doesn't really help. if something panned out does that mean it worked? or didn't work?
did the gold fuckin' stay in the pan or not?
Posted by: peacebug at March 2, 2006 11:55 AMAussie Liz:
Maybe I'm not sure exactly what I mean - it's more of an intuition than something I can explain. But per capita means "for each head."
So if the per capita income is $500 a year, the average person or "head" makes $500. Okay, I'm fine with that.
Now if you're looking at job postings per capita, in Richmond the number is 43 per 1000 people. Which means that for each person or "head" there is only .00043 of a job posting. Well that's probably off by a decimal point or two but you know what I mean. It would be a fraction. Per capita, or for each person in the total population, there is only a very small fraction of a job posting. So it's 43 job postings per thousand capita, not per capita.
So in the case of Jamaica, which in 1988 was the country "with the highest number of people on death row per capita..." it just doesn't sound right. There can only be, at most, one person on death row per capita. Each head can only be chopped off once.
Posted by: Pat Hartman at March 2, 2006 12:13 PMI feel the same about then/than, especially because there isn't a good mnemonic device to remember the difference.
My God, man, why not just throw out your silverware and drink from a puddle?
Posted by: TravisG at March 2, 2006 03:56 PMThese really frost my giblets:
1. "Running the gauntlet." Please. Unless you're trotting around with a pair of heavy leather gloves, you should be "running the gantlet."
2. "Hoisted on his own petard." The correct usage is "hoist by his own petard," meaning to be blown up (hoist) by a small explosive device designed to blow open barricaded doors and gates. It does not, contrary to what the majority of the country appears to believe, mean to be forcibly impaled on some sort of pole. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: CatStaff at March 2, 2006 04:16 PMConversate vs. conversated.
I prefer to say the latter, but the former always redeems itself in writing.
Posted by: Faux Real at March 2, 2006 10:42 PMMost of the traditional prescriptive grammar rules are useless, made-up twaddle (e.g., avoid singular "their," don't split infinitives, don't dangle prepositions -- these are all complete bollocks).
The rules of language are determined by consensus, and since -- for example -- approximately 99% of native English speakers would say "do you think you're better than me?" instead of "do you think you're better than I?", I think it's safe to say usage has effectively trumped that particular "rule" at this point. Insisting on "I" at the end of that sentence is like insisting on "thee" and "thou" -- language evolves, get over it.
But one ubiquitous mistake I honestly don't get:
"It was so stuffy in there, I could hardly breath."
No native speaker of English would actually say "breath" instead of "breathe" there -- so why is "breath" (as a verb) such an incredibly common typo?
Posted by: Thad at March 3, 2006 12:56 AM"Literally" "literally" gets on my nerves too. This guy says it shouldn't.
http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/
Posted by: Josh at March 3, 2006 02:02 AMTogolosh - the correct spelling is "Humphry Davy".
Posted by: Superpedant at March 3, 2006 07:31 AM"Irregardless" bugs me. I concur with "I" or "myself" in place of "me." Since flammable or inflammable doesn't come up in coversation very often, so it doesn't bug me too much. I like Strunk & White's take on it. They say "flammable" is permissible if "you are operating such a truck [carrying gasoline or explosives and marked with 'FLAMMABLE'] and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates."
Posted by: Jeff R. at March 3, 2006 07:55 AM"the country "with the highest number of people on death row per capita..." "
I believe this usage is correct. It means that country X has the highest number of people on death row _as a percentage of the total population_.
Posted by: Sharon at March 3, 2006 08:24 AMIt's a tie: "literally" used to mean "I can't begin to tell you how seriously I take this figurative point" goes to the wire neck 'n neck with the idea that what one does during an orientation is orientate.
Posted by: julia at March 5, 2006 01:31 AMCatStaff--
"Gantlet" is a variant spelling of "gauntlet." The OED, in fact, does not give gantlet a seperate entry but lumps the two together.
Posted by: Hissy Cat at March 6, 2006 07:01 AMNobody else mentioned this: the useless apostrophe with a plural for a family name. It drives me insane when I arrive at someone's house and the mailbox says "The Smith's."
Posted by: Temperance at March 11, 2006 04:26 AM