Poor writing, bad grammar and pet peeves in general

[chumley]

Should I even bother mentioning they're, their, and there?

It's vs its?

Your, you're?

How about "for all intensive purposes"?

Somebody on here has mentioned "lightening" before

Which ones get under your skin?

[chumley]

@mazatzal
I was expecting you to add some more colourful language specialising in words that mum would say.

[LindaAnn]

lose, loose
than, then
threw, through
sit, set
well, good
were, where, we're
bawl, ball --I saw that one on fb yesterday, and it was so hard to not correct it--but if I keep doing that, I'll have no friends.

[Alston_Neal]

Oh boy another chance to bring up ferrule cats.

[Sredfield]

Their, there, they're, let's all play nicely.


Insure vs ensure

[JoelHazelton]

Pretty much nobody knows how to properly use whom, so the improper use of who doesn't really bother me. I do enjoy bragging that I know how to correctly use who vs whom, though But having no friends gets lonely

[cactuscat]

I could care less.
; )

[rcorfman]

Then there is, "data shows." [-X

[flagscott]

Then there is, "data shows." [-X

As a scientist, I've probably used that phrase in published papers a dozen times. Totally acceptable. Usages change over time.

That said, my blood boils when I see sentences that start with "however" or "therefore." I will probably be the last person who still thinks it's wrong to do that.

[chumley]

@flagscott
However, data shows that as a scientist, you shouldn't comment on the humanities. ;)

[The_Eagle]

@chumley
There going too be mad at you to, for saying that.

[nikorock28]

Wat a bunch of eleetis' on this hear form.

[azbackpackr]

My latest pet peeve (in what is probably a tediously long list of grammar and spelling pet peeves) has nothing to do with lightening one's load in order to run away from lightning.

This phrase that's irking me seems to be cropping up a lot. I first started seeing it, redundantly, in a poorly-edited biography about Harvey Butchart.

It's this one: "Reign in." People have gotten into the habit of writing: "I'm going to reign in my activities."

Just remember, a queen reigns in her realm, a king reigns in his kingdom. An equestrienne reins in her horse, or a teamster reins in his mules, to control or slow them down. Now which term do you suppose you should be using? That's right, it's correct to write: "I'm going to rein in my activities."

Please don't rain in my parade...

[CannondaleKid]

my blood boils when I see sentences that start with "however" or "therefore." I will probably be the last person who still thinks it's wrong to do that.

On the other hand... :whistle:

[PatrickL]

Poor writing in general is my forte.

[pyro4lif]

All of you people should never read any of my posts!
I can't spell to save my life! Literally I still spell my name wrong and because I am dyslexic I cant even tell haha
Words and letters tend to jump around at will I still can never tell where and were apart or know when to use them... oh the list could go on and on haha
But I am sure @chumley you know this by now!

[Sredfield]

. . . continuing on . . .
Where else would you continue?

[chumley]

Literally

I know some people who might misuse this term from time to time...

[nikorock28]

@Sredfield
Posted beneath one of the windows at work: "Please insure the window is closed at night before you leave."
Redline I just received from my big boss "... units are too large, heavy and ocward..."

[rcorfman]

@azbackpackr
Since I reign in my activities, I see no need to rein them in.

[Sredfield]

Any "X times fewer" statements, such as:

. . . vegans are responsible for 2.5 times fewer food-related greenhouse-gas emissions . . . ; Heather Moore, research specialist for the PETA Foundation, quoted on Sauk Valley.com And is she talking about number of emission incidents, or volume of what was emitted? We'll never know.

. . . technology of this device has 120 times fewer false alarms . . . ; ALEJANDRA BUITRAGO in Anchorage Press.

. . . pediatricians and parents are testing five times fewer young people . . .; TIM LAHEY, M.D. in New York Times (!)

The "math" of the reverse statement--"x times as many"--can be calculated. ("3 times as many as X" if x is 100, then we are talking about 300. How does this work for a negative? 5 times fewer? What is the X in this statement? If we now have 120 times fewer false alarms, and we had 10 false alarms before, we now have (120 x 10) 1200 fewer false alarms, or 10-1200. Not possible to have -1190 false alarms.