All Comments on '"He's Gotten Laid": Proper Grammar'

I suspect that the people who need to read this the most are exactly those people who won't read it. :-(

Next time you could try to explain why "me and him went to the store" is wrong. More and more, I find that even otherwise knowledgeable talking heads get this wrong, thus perpetuating the error. Drives me crazy.

At least you used humor in this where possible. I still think it's a thankless job, expecting the wrongdoers to care.

It was great. Will make stories easier to read. Now if you can post on the proper use of “Democrat” and “Democratic”.

Who gives a rat's ass other than toads like you?

Neither ... nor ... IS (if the ... is singular)

Your fighting a losing battle. Its such a shame 😉

One of my pet peeves is when an author writes something like, “Olivia and I’s car got stolen.” It should read “Olivia’s and my car got stolen.”

Another pet peeve is when the author begins telling the story in past tense and then all of a sudden switches to present tense, and then back. Decide if you are telling a story that has happened or narrating a story that is happening! This is so distracting to me that I will give the story an automatic one star review.

Nobody cares

Everyone can use a grammar lesson now and then. Thanks.

That's why the process is draft->re-draft->editing->beta reading->edit->publish. Sadly, those errors you mention are what happens when writers aren't diligent about their work. None of us are professionals around here, BUT that should only be a difference as far as 'selling stories' is concerned. You should still take great care about your writing and story, short, medium, long, or novel, it doesn't matter.

another english major all proud of their skills ..u good at english great we are proud of you so write your perfict prose all perfictly spelled and proper use of all them little things , . ; : " ? well some of us are dyslexic and never do better than a c in english hard to write when you cant spell kind of like someone in a wheel chair running a foot race doesnt meen that people are stupid just a little handy capped do you laugh at people in wheel chairs ? should i laugh at you trying to weld or run a crane or build a reactor or turbine generator? we all are good at some things and not others ...if you read a story and are entertained by it for a time than mission accomnplished dont pick on people just to make yourself feel supperior

To the "Anonymous" who posted after TheGreyWolf81: Dsylexia has nothing to do with grammar. If you grew up speaking the language and you can write it at all, it's kinda expected that you should be able to write it at least passably. Stuff like improper tense mixing is inexcusable. Besides, you can't tell me that improper grammar doesn't interfere with understanding. The very purpose of grammar is ease of understanding, and it's not just something arbitrary like table manners. Grammar and syntax develop over the course of centuries as a language evolves. I say this as somebody who has studied linguistics, majored in French and Latin, used to be fluent in Spanish, and has studied German, Ancient Greek, Old English and Old Norse, the last three in decreasing order of familiarity.

Shit I found a typo.

Apostrophes: You say "its primary use is to denote possession". I think its primary use is to denote contraction. Most possessives do involve contraction, true, but there are also possessive articles that do not. We used, centuries ago, to say "the dog, his bone" to refer to a bone in the dog's mouth, but we now say "the dog's bone", the apostrophe indicating the contraction. When it comes to its vs. it's, well, its is the possessive article. Even in olden times, they didn't need any artificial construction to talk about the door's color using a pronoun: its color, both then and now. The possessive its is not a contraction and should not be burdened with an apostrophe.

Drank and hanged: "to drink" is an irregular verb. "to hang" was irregular, and to an extent it still is, but in this country it becoming a regular verb. So we say we drank, not drinked, which would correct if it were regular; and we can get away with hung as well as hanged, because the verb is in transition, (slowly) becoming regular. I'm 69 years old, and forms that were taught me as regular look wrong when regularized, but I hold my tongue because I favor the regularization of the language.

BUT, dammit, I will NOT accept "unphased" to mean unconcerned or unbothered; the word is UNFAZED!

To the most recent Anonymous (or at least the author of the most recently approved comment):

I suppose it is debatable, whether apostrophes are mainly for possession or contraction. I didn't really think about it that ay, I just chose possession since that is how most people seem to think of it, ergo the misuse of "it's".

I realize language evolves and that it is becoming more acceptable to simply add "-ed" to a verb, but in my opinion it doesn't count as "evolving" if it's just because people are too lazy/uneducated to do it the right way.

To the same Anonymous: if you go to GadenKerensky's "Xenophilia - Phoebe - Pt. 02", at the end of the third paragraph, or the second paragraph of the actual story, you will find the word "unphased".

GK is apparently British, so he misspells lots of words, except they are authorised by some weirdo who decided "licorice" should be spelled "liquorice". Which I will admit makes etymological sense, but still looks weird.

Me again: what makes "unphased" so particularly ugly is that it appears to the casual eye to have a root in "phase", which is ridiculous. "Unfazed", in addition to being correct, discourages unfortunate etymological speculations! (Thanks for the word, by the way; I couldn't have spelled "etymological" without your help.)

Or should it be "spelt"? I'm inclined to say that it doesn't matter what base motives make a person use the -ed form; he or she is moving the language in a positive direction, toward regularization. Sadly, I doubt if it is even possible to regularize "to be".

-- C

Another thing I hate: "sentences" with a participle, usually present, but no verb. "This being an example." I think it is because some people see the participle as a verb, so if there's a subject and a participle, it must be a sentence. This is not true. Participles are forms that are derived from, but are not themselves, verbs.

You missed the most common misuse of apostrophes - when they are used to make plurals. Just today, I read about cock's and pussy's in a story instead of cocks and pussies. Plurals never ever use apostrophes.

omfg people actually do that!? Never seen that before! ugh!