5 Common Grammar Errors
Math sucks. And I don’t mean that in the same way that Jimmy Buffett means it.
I mean, it really sucks. Math is completely devoid of humor. It’s like 7-Up — never had it, never will.
Writing these posts is a grind. Trying to find the funny in math is like trying to find a talented ballet dancer in Camden, New Jersey.
So, I’m officially done with math humor. Henceforth, the Math Jokes 4 Mathy Folks blog will focus entirely on the humor in language.1 Now, there’s a subject that just begs to be made fun of! Someday, when I get the gumption, I’ll officially change the name to something clever, like Grammar Jokes 4 Grammatical Folks or Words 4 Weenies.
But for now, it remains Math Jokes 4 Mathy Folks, and you’ll just have to tolerate the misnomer.
How’s this for a segue? Have you noticed that people ignore the rules of grammar almost as often as they ignore the rules of algebra? When I taught middle school, the same kid who claimed that (a + b)2 = a2 + b2 was also the one who asked me if I was “being haved.” (As in, the progressive form of behave after it had been dissected into be and have. Ostensibly, haved is an adjective synonymous with good.)
To demonstrate, here are five common grammar errors. For each, I am deferring to higher authorities — web comics such as The Oatmeal, Savage Chickens, and Urban Blah, who can provide better examples than I. (Or, at least, who have done the work of creating such examples long before I thought to do so.)
Literally. Leave it to a metalhead on www.metal-archives.com to write something as dumb as, “…when I heard that [Benighted] would be releasing a new album, I literally had to get a 3.7 kW submersible dewatering pump to drain the drool that had accumulated.”
I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised by grammatical missteps on a site promoting bands with names like Pig Axe, Putrefying Cadaverment, and my personal favorite Bowelf**k. (I wish I were making that up.)
As it turns out, some noteworthy grammarians have accepted literally as an adjective that can mean virtually or absolutely. But I tend to side with Daryl L. L. Houston, who wrote:
My knee-jerk reaction remains to sneer at mis(?)use of “literally.” It’s one of those things I’ve sneered at for long enough that it’s a hard habit to break.
Irregardless. My father’s favorite word. With prefix ir- (not) and suffix -less (not), this is a double negative that should mean “in regard to.” Alas, it is used as a synonym for regardless, and I can’t hear it without bristling.
I could ramble about this one all night, but Urban Blah is far more succinct (and eloquent) in expressing my position.
Double Negatives. See irregardless above. But also see not uncommon, don’t know nothing, and Toothpaste for Dinner.
They’re / Their / Their. Where are all the directors? They’re over there in their meeting. The Oatmeal classifies the misuse of these homonyms as misspellings, but I think they should be described as misthinkings.
Ellipsis. You want to build melancholy in a novel? The ellipsis is your friend. You want an email correspondent to know that you were thinking while penning a missive? The ellipsis is your nemesis. Show you were thinking by not overusing a grammatical element that conveys a deliberate omission.
If you can’t figure this one out, maybe the Savage Chickens can help you.
1 April Fools. Check back tomorrow for some new (but still not funny) math stuff.