As you know, we have already battled with the rules of when to use different spellings for the same words, and it has been no small task.
But the thing you have to understand that you can never really win the battle with words – you can only hold them back for long enough to crouch down in your trench and write a letter to your loved ones, telling them how much you miss the farm, and that you don't know when you'll be home.
Some words have two different spellings in the same country, and can be used interchangeably. These can hurt your head.
A prime offender of this is the word focussed. In US spelling, this word is spelt focused. In UK and Australian English, it's spelt focussed. But it's not really as straight-cut as that, because Australian English can't make it's mind up which one to use.
According to The Style Guide, which is the official guide to all the spellings in Australia, you should use focussed. But in the majority of publications, such as the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, the spelling focused is used instead. And you know when the Sydney Morning Herald is involved, shit is serious.
I know what you're thinking: You thinking 'what the fuck?! Why can't they just decide on one spelling!?' Well, you make a good point, but you're just a foot soldier on the grammar battlefield, and the question of focused and focussed is an interesting example of Australian spelling being an English ho, incorporating both UK and US spellings without so much as blushing.
The bottom line is that when you are in Australia, you have the option to use both spellings, as long as you are consistent. You can't just use focussed and focused in the same document - you need to stick with one, or you'll look like you've gone insane with choice.
Saturday, 26 November 2011
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Who vs whom Part 2 – grammar suffers a bulletwound in the war-torn battlefield of hurt feelings
As you know, MC Grammar doesn't get upset very often. The only people that I hate are Robert Mugabe and all manufacturers of corn syrup. But lately, there has been something else that has been getting my goat – what is up with people using archaic language in an argument, just because they think that it makes them look smart and scares their opponents?
This leads us to the story of GASP Jeans, a clothes store that became part of an online viral story last month because of emails that were exchanged between a customer, Keara O'Neill, and a customer service-type person, Matthew Chidgey
From Keara O'Neill, the shopper:
I had the privilege of shopping at your brand new Chapel St store on Saturday 24th September with my three bridesmaids in tow. On the hunt for bridesmaids dresses and a hens dress for myself we walked into the store and were automatically pounced on by a male staff member, I understand that this is protocol for many retail outlets and ours is no different.
The staff member was initially funny and extremely helpful with sizes etc. I chose a bright pink dress to try on but was unable to do the zip up so asked for the size up, when I eventually got the correct size and came out of the change room I was unable to discuss the likes or dislikes of the dress with my bridesmaids as the sales assistant kept saying “you should just get it”, when I told him I would think about it, he pulled me aside and whispered “Is it the price your worried about”. By now I was extremely frustrated, and again told him I’d think about it, I walked back into the change room and closed the door behind me, only to have it pushed open with the sales assistant half standing in my change room, again whispering “I think you should just get it”, when I gave him attitude and said rudely, “I already told you I would think about it”, he then replied, “With your figure I really think you should buy it”.
I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, but considering the attitude used to deliver such a statement I can only imagine that it was an immature dig in relation to my healthy size 12 frame. I got changed in a hurry and walked right out of the change rooms and out of the store, I could hear the sales assistant yelling out to me, but I just ignored him and continued to leave, assuming my bridesmaids would follow. After waiting down the road for my bridesmaids to come out of the store I was told by one of them that the sales assistant yelled out “Have fun finding something at Supre”, when one of them approached him in regards to his comments, he replied “I knew you girls were a joke the minute you walked in”. When my bridesmaids walked out of the store another two customers walked out with them, they too could not believe the immaturity of the sales assistant.
I have worked in retail for 12 years and have come across an array of customer complaints over the years, none of which come even close to what I encountered on Saturday at your store, I wish I was exaggerating but unfortunately for your company this person actually exists and is working in one of your stores. I am pretty laid back and was quite happy just leaving your store, it was my bridesmaids who felt the need to say something to him…I dread to think how many customers he has not only offended but how many customers have left your store due to the pressure placed on getting the sale, and then to be harassed when that sale hasn’t taken place.
Ring me, don’t ring, not fussed…I’m just one retailer notifying another of an extremely inappropriate sales assistant.
Keara O'Neil
And here's the response by GASP area manager Matthew Chidgey:
Dear Keara O’Neil,
Having now had the privilege of having both version of events, I am now in a position to respond to your complaint.
From the very outset, one thing that you should be mindful of is; Our product offerings are very, very carefully selected, so to ensure that we do not appeal to a broad customer base. This is something which is always at the forefront of our minds when undertaking buying duties.
The reason for this is to ensure that we only carry products which appeal to a very fashion forward consumer. This by default means that the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range, sometimes we have found that this type of customer, almost finds our dresses funny, and on occasion noted comments such as 'it looks like a dead flamingo'. When we receive comments like this, we like to give ourselves and our buyers, a big pat on the back, because we know we are doing our job right, and modus operandi is being upheld.
Our range is worn by A list celebrities to the likes of Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez and Katy Perry to name only a few. Now, as one might appreciate, the style counsel for these types of celebrities are not ones to pick “run of the mill” type clothing, and they do so on the basis to ensure that the styles are cutting edge, and only worn by a select few. Similarly these items are priced such that they remain inaccessible to the undesirable.
Insofar as our employee goes; Similar to our product offerings, our employees are selected with a similar approach. Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion, and Chris’s only problem is that he is too good at what he does, and as I am sure you are aware, people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted, which is the reason you were provoked to leave the store.
Whilst I concede that you work for chain retailer, unfortunately that does not make us like for like. It is probably fair to assume, a lot of what I have said in this email, either doesn’t make sense to you, or you totally disagree with it all, which is what I would expect (unless of course I have you totally wrong – which I doubt).
Let me guess, you would never, ever hire Chris in the course of your duty, would you? This is the very reason, why your comment “from one retailer to another” is so disproportionate, it’s almost as though we are in a totally different industries. Chris is a retail superstar, who possess unparalleled ability, and I am sorry you feel upset by him, but he knew you were not going to buy anything before you even left your house.
So if you would like to do us any favours, please do not waste our retail staff’s time, because as you have already seen, they will not tolerate it. I am sure there are plenty of shops that appease your taste, so I respectfully ask that you side step our store during future window shopping expeditions.
Thank you for your enquiry.
The best part of this email is the sign off, 'thank you for your inquiry' That's the sting the tail of this already very poisonous and aggressive scorpion's tale.
Let's have a look at Mr Chidgey's use of the pronoun, 'whom'.
...the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range...
Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion...
...people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted...
Matthew Chidgey! Why are you so fashion forward, and yet so grammar stationary! Why can't it be both! Why can't your sixth sense for fashion also come with a first sense for grammar correctness? You wordlessly promise so much with your fine, coiffed hair, your sharp, micro-fibre suit, but beyond your gilded exterior you are full of not just archaic language, but also plainly incorrect grammar.
As we have learnt before, traditionally who was used to refer to refer to the subject of a sentence or clause. For example:
I know it was you who stepped on my fish
Whom was used when referring to the object of a clause. For example:
To whom were you speaking just then?
However, the use of whom is now mostly archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.
The only time you really need to use 'whom' when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example,
To whom it may concern
In all other situations, you can use 'who'.
So, unfortunately for Matthew Chidgey, he has let himself – and us – down on two fronts. He has used whom even though it is archaic, and in the places where he has used it, he's not even using it to refer to the object of a sentence. WTF, Matthew Chidgey!
Matthew Chidgey, please try to be like fisherman Julian Chidgey, who has taken life by the horns and caught this huge fish.
This leads us to the story of GASP Jeans, a clothes store that became part of an online viral story last month because of emails that were exchanged between a customer, Keara O'Neill, and a customer service-type person, Matthew Chidgey
From Keara O'Neill, the shopper:
I had the privilege of shopping at your brand new Chapel St store on Saturday 24th September with my three bridesmaids in tow. On the hunt for bridesmaids dresses and a hens dress for myself we walked into the store and were automatically pounced on by a male staff member, I understand that this is protocol for many retail outlets and ours is no different.
The staff member was initially funny and extremely helpful with sizes etc. I chose a bright pink dress to try on but was unable to do the zip up so asked for the size up, when I eventually got the correct size and came out of the change room I was unable to discuss the likes or dislikes of the dress with my bridesmaids as the sales assistant kept saying “you should just get it”, when I told him I would think about it, he pulled me aside and whispered “Is it the price your worried about”. By now I was extremely frustrated, and again told him I’d think about it, I walked back into the change room and closed the door behind me, only to have it pushed open with the sales assistant half standing in my change room, again whispering “I think you should just get it”, when I gave him attitude and said rudely, “I already told you I would think about it”, he then replied, “With your figure I really think you should buy it”.
I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, but considering the attitude used to deliver such a statement I can only imagine that it was an immature dig in relation to my healthy size 12 frame. I got changed in a hurry and walked right out of the change rooms and out of the store, I could hear the sales assistant yelling out to me, but I just ignored him and continued to leave, assuming my bridesmaids would follow. After waiting down the road for my bridesmaids to come out of the store I was told by one of them that the sales assistant yelled out “Have fun finding something at Supre”, when one of them approached him in regards to his comments, he replied “I knew you girls were a joke the minute you walked in”. When my bridesmaids walked out of the store another two customers walked out with them, they too could not believe the immaturity of the sales assistant.
I have worked in retail for 12 years and have come across an array of customer complaints over the years, none of which come even close to what I encountered on Saturday at your store, I wish I was exaggerating but unfortunately for your company this person actually exists and is working in one of your stores. I am pretty laid back and was quite happy just leaving your store, it was my bridesmaids who felt the need to say something to him…I dread to think how many customers he has not only offended but how many customers have left your store due to the pressure placed on getting the sale, and then to be harassed when that sale hasn’t taken place.
Ring me, don’t ring, not fussed…I’m just one retailer notifying another of an extremely inappropriate sales assistant.
Keara O'Neil
And here's the response by GASP area manager Matthew Chidgey:
Dear Keara O’Neil,
Having now had the privilege of having both version of events, I am now in a position to respond to your complaint.
From the very outset, one thing that you should be mindful of is; Our product offerings are very, very carefully selected, so to ensure that we do not appeal to a broad customer base. This is something which is always at the forefront of our minds when undertaking buying duties.
The reason for this is to ensure that we only carry products which appeal to a very fashion forward consumer. This by default means that the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range, sometimes we have found that this type of customer, almost finds our dresses funny, and on occasion noted comments such as 'it looks like a dead flamingo'. When we receive comments like this, we like to give ourselves and our buyers, a big pat on the back, because we know we are doing our job right, and modus operandi is being upheld.
Our range is worn by A list celebrities to the likes of Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez and Katy Perry to name only a few. Now, as one might appreciate, the style counsel for these types of celebrities are not ones to pick “run of the mill” type clothing, and they do so on the basis to ensure that the styles are cutting edge, and only worn by a select few. Similarly these items are priced such that they remain inaccessible to the undesirable.
Insofar as our employee goes; Similar to our product offerings, our employees are selected with a similar approach. Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion, and Chris’s only problem is that he is too good at what he does, and as I am sure you are aware, people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted, which is the reason you were provoked to leave the store.
Whilst I concede that you work for chain retailer, unfortunately that does not make us like for like. It is probably fair to assume, a lot of what I have said in this email, either doesn’t make sense to you, or you totally disagree with it all, which is what I would expect (unless of course I have you totally wrong – which I doubt).
Let me guess, you would never, ever hire Chris in the course of your duty, would you? This is the very reason, why your comment “from one retailer to another” is so disproportionate, it’s almost as though we are in a totally different industries. Chris is a retail superstar, who possess unparalleled ability, and I am sorry you feel upset by him, but he knew you were not going to buy anything before you even left your house.
So if you would like to do us any favours, please do not waste our retail staff’s time, because as you have already seen, they will not tolerate it. I am sure there are plenty of shops that appease your taste, so I respectfully ask that you side step our store during future window shopping expeditions.
Thank you for your enquiry.
The best part of this email is the sign off, 'thank you for your inquiry' That's the sting the tail of this already very poisonous and aggressive scorpion's tale.
Let's have a look at Mr Chidgey's use of the pronoun, 'whom'.
...the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range...
Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion...
...people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted...
Matthew Chidgey! Why are you so fashion forward, and yet so grammar stationary! Why can't it be both! Why can't your sixth sense for fashion also come with a first sense for grammar correctness? You wordlessly promise so much with your fine, coiffed hair, your sharp, micro-fibre suit, but beyond your gilded exterior you are full of not just archaic language, but also plainly incorrect grammar.
As we have learnt before, traditionally who was used to refer to refer to the subject of a sentence or clause. For example:
I know it was you who stepped on my fish
Whom was used when referring to the object of a clause. For example:
To whom were you speaking just then?
However, the use of whom is now mostly archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.
The only time you really need to use 'whom' when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example,
To whom it may concern
In all other situations, you can use 'who'.
So, unfortunately for Matthew Chidgey, he has let himself – and us – down on two fronts. He has used whom even though it is archaic, and in the places where he has used it, he's not even using it to refer to the object of a sentence. WTF, Matthew Chidgey!
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
To lol or not to lol?
David Mitchell is someone who loves grammar. Every day he fights for a better understanding of grammar, and his passions also include the honesty of politicians and the rules of queuing.
So it's safe to say that David Mitchell is a kind of well-rounded soldier for goodness. Here, David talks about the abbreviation lol, and has some very interesting points about how awesome it really is.
So it's safe to say that David Mitchell is a kind of well-rounded soldier for goodness. Here, David talks about the abbreviation lol, and has some very interesting points about how awesome it really is.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
10 mispronunciations that could get you killed
This is the cast of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.
They know about heinous. This is because they deal with heinous sex crimes every day of their damn working lives. In fact, they eat a bowl of heinous first thing in the morning. When they get to their desks, the first thing they do is update their status on facebook and twitter to 'very heinous', and after work, they go to the gym for a variety of workouts, such as 'heinous pump', 'cross-heinous' and 'advanced heinousness'.
And because they deal with heinousness in every facet of their day-to-day lives, they also know how to pronounce the word heinous – you would if you had to deal with it every damn day of your life. But what about you, who isn't confronted with the same amount of heinousness every day of your life? How will you cope when something heinous comes along? And who knows how a psychopathic murderer will react when they hear you say 'heinous' wrong?
And it's for this exact reason that you need to know these 10 frequently mispronounced words – so you are safe from all forms of heinousness in the future.
Here are 10 frequently mispronounced words:
Heinous – HAY-nus, not heen-us. Hear it here.
Often – you do not pronounce the 't' in often. Hear it here.
Exacerbate – the 'c' in exacerbate is soft, so it is ig-ZAS-ur-bayt, not ig-ZAK-ur-bayt. Hear it here.
Interpret – in-ter-PRET, not in-ter-PRE-TATE. Hear it here
Miniature – This word has four syllables. Say min-I-A-ture, not min-A-ture. Hear it here.
Preventive –This word has three syllables, not four. Pre-ven-tive, not pre-ven-TA-tive. Hear it here.
Regardless – This word has three syllables. Ain't no such word as 'irregardless'.
Asterisk – Notice the second S. Say as-ter-isk, not as-ter-ik. Hear it here.
Dilate – This word has two syllables, not three. Say di-late, not di-A-late. Hear it here.
Etcetera – Say et-cet-era, not ex-cet-era. Hear it here.
Armed with this knowledge, you can go about your business, never having to be afraid that you will suddenly utter a mispronunciation without realising. The streets might not be any safer, but at least your pronunciation is.
They know about heinous. This is because they deal with heinous sex crimes every day of their damn working lives. In fact, they eat a bowl of heinous first thing in the morning. When they get to their desks, the first thing they do is update their status on facebook and twitter to 'very heinous', and after work, they go to the gym for a variety of workouts, such as 'heinous pump', 'cross-heinous' and 'advanced heinousness'.
And because they deal with heinousness in every facet of their day-to-day lives, they also know how to pronounce the word heinous – you would if you had to deal with it every damn day of your life. But what about you, who isn't confronted with the same amount of heinousness every day of your life? How will you cope when something heinous comes along? And who knows how a psychopathic murderer will react when they hear you say 'heinous' wrong?
And it's for this exact reason that you need to know these 10 frequently mispronounced words – so you are safe from all forms of heinousness in the future.
Here are 10 frequently mispronounced words:
Heinous – HAY-nus, not heen-us. Hear it here.
Often – you do not pronounce the 't' in often. Hear it here.
Exacerbate – the 'c' in exacerbate is soft, so it is ig-ZAS-ur-bayt, not ig-ZAK-ur-bayt. Hear it here.
Interpret – in-ter-PRET, not in-ter-PRE-TATE. Hear it here
Miniature – This word has four syllables. Say min-I-A-ture, not min-A-ture. Hear it here.
Preventive –This word has three syllables, not four. Pre-ven-tive, not pre-ven-TA-tive. Hear it here.
Regardless – This word has three syllables. Ain't no such word as 'irregardless'.
Asterisk – Notice the second S. Say as-ter-isk, not as-ter-ik. Hear it here.
Dilate – This word has two syllables, not three. Say di-late, not di-A-late. Hear it here.
Etcetera – Say et-cet-era, not ex-cet-era. Hear it here.
Armed with this knowledge, you can go about your business, never having to be afraid that you will suddenly utter a mispronunciation without realising. The streets might not be any safer, but at least your pronunciation is.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
That vs which
During a very enjoyable afternoon of internet browsing, I image-googled 'that vs which', and this image came up:
So, when do you use that, and when do you use which?
The easiest way to remember how to use these two words correctly is to remember that you use that for a restrictive clause, and which for everything else.
A restrictive clause is a clause that limits what is being talked about. For example:
Dogs that bark get kidnapped around here.
In these clauses, you can't just leave out the bit about barking, because the kind of dogs we are talking about is restricted to dogs that bark.
However, if you say:
Dogs, which bark, get kidnapped around here
It means that it is not just dogs that bark that get kidnapped, but pretty much any dog that gets kidnapped. The barking bit is just extra information that might give you when they are overly interested in details.
 |
| Mysterious. |
So, when do you use that, and when do you use which?
The easiest way to remember how to use these two words correctly is to remember that you use that for a restrictive clause, and which for everything else.
A restrictive clause is a clause that limits what is being talked about. For example:
Dogs that bark get kidnapped around here.
In these clauses, you can't just leave out the bit about barking, because the kind of dogs we are talking about is restricted to dogs that bark.
However, if you say:
Dogs, which bark, get kidnapped around here
It means that it is not just dogs that bark that get kidnapped, but pretty much any dog that gets kidnapped. The barking bit is just extra information that might give you when they are overly interested in details.
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Here's the situation: the sentence Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is a grammatically correct sentence that has a meaning.
The sentence uses three different meanings of 'buffalo'.
1. the city of Buffalo, New York, United States
2. the noun buffalo as in the animal; and
3. the verb 'buffalo' meaning to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate.
This means that the sentence if split up like this:
Marking each 'buffalo' with its use as shown above gives:
Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) buffalo(3) buffalo(3) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2)
So that the meaning of the sentence is:
Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison.
If this is still not making a lot of sense, think of it like this: If you replaced the verb 'buffalo' with 'intimidate', and the noun 'buffalo' with the word 'people', the sentence would read:
Buffalo people that Buffalo people intimidate also intimidate people.
It's clear that this is some crazy shit. It's an example of how homonyms can be used.
Homonyms are words that have the same spellings and pronunciations, but different meanings. Other examples of homonyms are:
Bass (e.g. I enjoy bass fishing and play the bass guitar)
Lead (e.g. the group's lead singer had made some enemies, and carried a lead pipe for protection.)
The amazing thing about this crazy homonym sentence is that is a completely valid sentence in the form that you see it in – it doesn't really even need punctuation, unless you are a bit of a comma-lover.
'I'm sorry, were you talking to me, or were you referring to the city of Buffalo. Or perhaps you were referring to the colloquial term 'buffalo', meaning 'to bully'? It's all so confusing! How did we even get this far as a species?'
The sentence uses three different meanings of 'buffalo'.
1. the city of Buffalo, New York, United States
2. the noun buffalo as in the animal; and
3. the verb 'buffalo' meaning to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate.
This means that the sentence if split up like this:
Marking each 'buffalo' with its use as shown above gives:
Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) buffalo(3) buffalo(3) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2)
So that the meaning of the sentence is:
Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison.
If this is still not making a lot of sense, think of it like this: If you replaced the verb 'buffalo' with 'intimidate', and the noun 'buffalo' with the word 'people', the sentence would read:
Buffalo people that Buffalo people intimidate also intimidate people.
It's clear that this is some crazy shit. It's an example of how homonyms can be used.
Homonyms are words that have the same spellings and pronunciations, but different meanings. Other examples of homonyms are:
Bass (e.g. I enjoy bass fishing and play the bass guitar)
Lead (e.g. the group's lead singer had made some enemies, and carried a lead pipe for protection.)
The amazing thing about this crazy homonym sentence is that is a completely valid sentence in the form that you see it in – it doesn't really even need punctuation, unless you are a bit of a comma-lover.
Friday, 19 August 2011
Bear in mind – the correct spelling of a phrase, or a terrifying psychotic episode?
A lot of words have more than one meaning. Sometimes, it's as though these words are taunting us like potholes in the roads of our happiness, causing us to find ourselves helplessly stuck in a hole of misunderstanding. The double meaning of bear is an excellent example of these terrible, confusing potholes, not least when it is used in the context of the term 'bear in mind'.
You, like many other sexy and intelligent people, have probably said to yourself more than once, 'hang on, it can't be 'bear' in mind because 'bear' is an animal. It must be the other word that sounds a bit like bear, which is 'bare' in mind. Yes it must be 'bare in mind', as a bear in mind would be a terrifying psychotic episode brought on by a hereditary or lifestyle influence. But before we suffer in the darkness any longer, let's separate the lies from the truth here.
The word bear has two meanings:
1. A large, furry animal that can kill you
2. To carry, e.g. ' They came bearing gifts'
And so, the phrase 'bear in mind' refers to the second meaning of bear, as in 'carry this thought in your mind'.
And so, another grammar pothole has been filled in, making your journey to grammar nirvana smooth and joyous.
You, like many other sexy and intelligent people, have probably said to yourself more than once, 'hang on, it can't be 'bear' in mind because 'bear' is an animal. It must be the other word that sounds a bit like bear, which is 'bare' in mind. Yes it must be 'bare in mind', as a bear in mind would be a terrifying psychotic episode brought on by a hereditary or lifestyle influence. But before we suffer in the darkness any longer, let's separate the lies from the truth here.
The word bear has two meanings:
1. A large, furry animal that can kill you
2. To carry, e.g. ' They came bearing gifts'
And so, the phrase 'bear in mind' refers to the second meaning of bear, as in 'carry this thought in your mind'.
And so, another grammar pothole has been filled in, making your journey to grammar nirvana smooth and joyous.
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Breaking news: MC Grammar reveals his real name
Friends, lovers, avid followers and solicitors of sexual favours. For years I have hidden behind my street name, MC Grammar, and you have patiently accepted this and referred to me by this name, even though in your heart of hearts you must have known that that was not the name that my smart and bold mama gave me.
So now it's time to reveal to you that my real name is James Prometheus Wiki III. The reason I want to reveal this to you is because that's what friends do when they have known each other for a while, and I trust you with this information.
Now, a few years ago I discovered that I had a real talent for helping people and giving them helpful life advice. Around the same time, I was becoming very savvy at the internet. I had added a number of helpful facts onto internet and I decided that it would be great if I had my own internet website that gave people facts. I commenced going about buying a domain name, and I thought it would be fantastic if I created a website that was like consulting an encyclopedia in real life! Therefore, I tried to buy a domain site called ‘wiki-pedia’. Imagine my shock when I discovered that the domain site ‘wikipedia.com’ had already been bought. I went away to try and deal with my anger, and after some self-reflection, I decided that my helpful site would be just as useful if I called it ‘Wiki-How’. To my frustration and rage, wikihow.com had also already been purchased.
Following this, I developed incontinence for a while. It was a terrible time, but I realised after a while that it was just psychological. I decided to create a website for people who had gone through the same struggle with their bladders, but then, to my utter devastation, I discovered that the domain site ‘wikileaks.com’ had also been bought. Why was it that the world was always one step ahead of me? Why was it that every time I had a vision of how I could change the world, someone else had already seen it, and made it their own?
Then something wonderful occurred to me. I realised that it wasn't important what I called my helpful website, as long as I was helping people with their problems.
With renewed zeal, I embarked on a very happy life of explaining grammar, and let me tell you, I have never looked back.
And with all of this cleared up, let's move on to the wonderful world of non-countable nouns.
Non-countable nouns, also known as uncountable nouns or mass nouns, are things that can't be divided into separate elements. In other words, they can't be 'counted'.
For example, instead of saying a milk, you should say a glass of milk, because even if you literally owned all the milk in the world, you still couldn't have a milk. That would be like having a dirt, or a pollen.
Examples of non-countable verbs are:
advice, information, news
furniture, luggage
rice, sugar, butter, water
electricity, gas,
money, currency
And if you don't have the specific words to describe the noun you are talking about, you can always just use some, any, little and much with non-countable nouns:I've got some money.
Have you got any rice?
I haven't got much advice for you
I've got a little money.
These are also known as quantifying adjectives, because they indicate amounts. Some other ways you can refer to a non-countable verb are:
A piece of news
A bottle of water
A grain of rice
We have now made some considerable progress in the world of non-countable nouns, which I am very happy about. I realise now that my role is to help with grammar, not to launch a multi-million dollar general help site that advices people on all manner of things. But to reminisce about that youthful dream I once had, let's appreciate these fun and cool girls as they help the world with its kissing.
So now it's time to reveal to you that my real name is James Prometheus Wiki III. The reason I want to reveal this to you is because that's what friends do when they have known each other for a while, and I trust you with this information.
Now, a few years ago I discovered that I had a real talent for helping people and giving them helpful life advice. Around the same time, I was becoming very savvy at the internet. I had added a number of helpful facts onto internet and I decided that it would be great if I had my own internet website that gave people facts. I commenced going about buying a domain name, and I thought it would be fantastic if I created a website that was like consulting an encyclopedia in real life! Therefore, I tried to buy a domain site called ‘wiki-pedia’. Imagine my shock when I discovered that the domain site ‘wikipedia.com’ had already been bought. I went away to try and deal with my anger, and after some self-reflection, I decided that my helpful site would be just as useful if I called it ‘Wiki-How’. To my frustration and rage, wikihow.com had also already been purchased.
Following this, I developed incontinence for a while. It was a terrible time, but I realised after a while that it was just psychological. I decided to create a website for people who had gone through the same struggle with their bladders, but then, to my utter devastation, I discovered that the domain site ‘wikileaks.com’ had also been bought. Why was it that the world was always one step ahead of me? Why was it that every time I had a vision of how I could change the world, someone else had already seen it, and made it their own?
Then something wonderful occurred to me. I realised that it wasn't important what I called my helpful website, as long as I was helping people with their problems.
With renewed zeal, I embarked on a very happy life of explaining grammar, and let me tell you, I have never looked back.
And with all of this cleared up, let's move on to the wonderful world of non-countable nouns.
Non-countable nouns, also known as uncountable nouns or mass nouns, are things that can't be divided into separate elements. In other words, they can't be 'counted'.
For example, instead of saying a milk, you should say a glass of milk, because even if you literally owned all the milk in the world, you still couldn't have a milk. That would be like having a dirt, or a pollen.
Examples of non-countable verbs are:
advice, information, news
furniture, luggage
rice, sugar, butter, water
electricity, gas,
money, currency
And if you don't have the specific words to describe the noun you are talking about, you can always just use some, any, little and much with non-countable nouns:I've got some money.
Have you got any rice?
I haven't got much advice for you
I've got a little money.
These are also known as quantifying adjectives, because they indicate amounts. Some other ways you can refer to a non-countable verb are:
A piece of news
A bottle of water
A grain of rice
We have now made some considerable progress in the world of non-countable nouns, which I am very happy about. I realise now that my role is to help with grammar, not to launch a multi-million dollar general help site that advices people on all manner of things. But to reminisce about that youthful dream I once had, let's appreciate these fun and cool girls as they help the world with its kissing.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Definitely a post you should read
I feel shame. It's the kind of shame that you know you should have, and you attend years of cognitive therapy to see how irrational your shame is, but when you're lying in your four-poster bed in the dark, you can't help but feel like you're just a really a bad person.
You see, despite all my wonderful qualities, it is pretty often that I misspell the word definitely.
Yes, even me, who loves grammar so much that my children are named 'Suffix', 'Elipsis' and 'Dash' sometimes falters when I am called upon to remember whether you spell definitely or definitley.
The short story is it's definitely. You might think that that's confusing, because it's not like you say definit-elly, but you see, the e in definitely is silent. In this case, definite is the main part of the word, while -ly is the suffix.
A suffix is a group of letters that are at the end of a word to make a new word. The most common example of a suffix is the s that is added to the end of things, like cats, to indicate that something is plural.
Other examples of suffixes include:
Suffix Original Word Suffixed Word
en Eat Eaten
ing Sleep Sleeping
al accident accidental
able tax taxable
ly brother brotherly
ful forget forgetful
ly helpful helpfully
We have now learnt not only about prefixes but also suffixes, so to top all this off, let's listen to this rap that puts it all together:
You see, despite all my wonderful qualities, it is pretty often that I misspell the word definitely.
Yes, even me, who loves grammar so much that my children are named 'Suffix', 'Elipsis' and 'Dash' sometimes falters when I am called upon to remember whether you spell definitely or definitley.
The short story is it's definitely. You might think that that's confusing, because it's not like you say definit-elly, but you see, the e in definitely is silent. In this case, definite is the main part of the word, while -ly is the suffix.
A suffix is a group of letters that are at the end of a word to make a new word. The most common example of a suffix is the s that is added to the end of things, like cats, to indicate that something is plural.
Other examples of suffixes include:
Suffix Original Word Suffixed Word
en Eat Eaten
ing Sleep Sleeping
al accident accidental
able tax taxable
ly brother brotherly
ful forget forgetful
ly helpful helpfully
We have now learnt not only about prefixes but also suffixes, so to top all this off, let's listen to this rap that puts it all together:
Monday, 20 June 2011
An internet blog post about tautology
This is MC Grammar's sister, Bee-Rock.
![]()
Bee-Rock is a dancer. She loves hip-hop, jazz, contemporary and ballroom, and any other style of dance you can think of. But she has a problem. Every now and again, somebody utters the phrase 'I saw you dancing that dance last week.'
This phrase is what's known as a tautology. This makes Bee-Rock very annoyed. You see, Bee-Rock has no time for tautology. Sometimes it gets so bad that the only place she feels safe is on the dancefloor. She flees back to it and dances furiously, mascara-stained tears streaming down her face. 'No der I was '"dancing" a "dance"' she screams against the din of music to no one in particular. 'How else you do a dance?'
Tautology is when you say the same thing twice in different words. For example, the tiny little man is a tautology because it's unnecessary to say both 'tiny' and 'little'. Other examples of this are:
I'm going to raze this house to the ground.
When you threaten to raze something, it's pretty much assumed that you're going to raze it all the way to the ground.
The downstairs basement
Basements are always downstairs
One of the most common tautologies is terms like a free gift. This offender tends to come up in many varieties, such as:
A gift of wine on the house
The elephant was donated as a gift
Gifts and donations are always free, so this is where the tautology part comes in.
So do the right thing and try not to use tautologies – as Bee-Rock always says, the time you waste saying unnecessary things is time your could have spent dancing.
Bee-Rock is a dancer. She loves hip-hop, jazz, contemporary and ballroom, and any other style of dance you can think of. But she has a problem. Every now and again, somebody utters the phrase 'I saw you dancing that dance last week.'
This phrase is what's known as a tautology. This makes Bee-Rock very annoyed. You see, Bee-Rock has no time for tautology. Sometimes it gets so bad that the only place she feels safe is on the dancefloor. She flees back to it and dances furiously, mascara-stained tears streaming down her face. 'No der I was '"dancing" a "dance"' she screams against the din of music to no one in particular. 'How else you do a dance?'
Tautology is when you say the same thing twice in different words. For example, the tiny little man is a tautology because it's unnecessary to say both 'tiny' and 'little'. Other examples of this are:
I'm going to raze this house to the ground.
When you threaten to raze something, it's pretty much assumed that you're going to raze it all the way to the ground.
The downstairs basement
Basements are always downstairs
One of the most common tautologies is terms like a free gift. This offender tends to come up in many varieties, such as:
A gift of wine on the house
The elephant was donated as a gift
Gifts and donations are always free, so this is where the tautology part comes in.
So do the right thing and try not to use tautologies – as Bee-Rock always says, the time you waste saying unnecessary things is time your could have spent dancing.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Sudden Adjectives: The words that action movies can't do without
MC Grammar loves action movies. All those explosions, high speed car chases, bombs, and even though walking away slowly from an explosion that is right behind you in real life would just be a sign that had been traumatised by violence, there's nothing quite like it when you're watching it in an action movie.
And one of the things I love the most about action movies is their names, like Dragon Eyes, Sudden Death, Street Fighter, Hard Target, Double Target, and Knockaround Guys. All these titles have something in common – they all have adjectives in them.
There's nothing I love more than an adjective-noun action move. When you see one of the these, you know that you're going to get first-class action on your wide-screen TV, and almost definitely the martial art stylings of Jean-Claude Van Damme will be in it.
The role of adjectives is to give more information about the thing you are talking about. The most common form of an adjective is the attributive adjective. There are difference kinds of adjectives. There are attributive adjectives, meaning that it tells us more about the the main noun or object in a sentence:
It was an interesting animal
An adjective can be predicative, meaning it can be the predicate in a sentence:
This wig is glossy
And adjective can be post-positive, which means that it appears after the noun, like:
There was food aplenty, but it was of the worst kind imaginable
Or an adjective can be substantive, which is when an adjective is used like a noun:
And one of the things I love the most about action movies is their names, like Dragon Eyes, Sudden Death, Street Fighter, Hard Target, Double Target, and Knockaround Guys. All these titles have something in common – they all have adjectives in them.
There's nothing I love more than an adjective-noun action move. When you see one of the these, you know that you're going to get first-class action on your wide-screen TV, and almost definitely the martial art stylings of Jean-Claude Van Damme will be in it.
The role of adjectives is to give more information about the thing you are talking about. The most common form of an adjective is the attributive adjective. There are difference kinds of adjectives. There are attributive adjectives, meaning that it tells us more about the the main noun or object in a sentence:
It was an interesting animal
An adjective can be predicative, meaning it can be the predicate in a sentence:
This wig is glossy
And adjective can be post-positive, which means that it appears after the noun, like:
There was food aplenty, but it was of the worst kind imaginable
Or an adjective can be substantive, which is when an adjective is used like a noun:
The good, the bad, and the ugly.
A good rule to follow is to avoid using too many adjectives in a sentence. For example, look at this passage from 'New Moon', by Stephanie Meyer:
I woke with a start – my eyelids popping open wide – and gasped. Dull, grey light, the familiar light of an overcast morning, took the place of the blinding sun in my dream.
Woah, Stephanie Meyer, slow down there! There's a shitload of adjectives in your story and it's making your story look weird!
Also, you run the risk of tautology when you use too many adjectives. For example:
The wide open canyon.
Obviously a wide canyon is going to be open.
I was in close proximity to the lion.
All proximity is close.
I was in close proximity to the lion.
All proximity is close.
Good God – where would we be without adjectives! Imagine if some of the greatest movies didn't have adjectives to emphasise their awesomeness? We would have action movies with names like 'Death that is going to happen now', 'More Than One Target' and 'Target that I keep missing'. As this would not do justice to the man that inspires all these movies, Jean-Claude Van Damme. Let's pay homage to him now.
Friday, 20 May 2011
Hyphen use and other sex tips
As you probably know, MC Grammar is as much into physical love as he is into lingual love.
And when it comes to the world of punctuation, there's no sign that imitates the act of physical love more than the hyphen, which helps bring words together as close as they can be, whilst still retaining their individuality.
Hyphens are used to combine words. They are used for:
I was laid off
You don't need to bother using a hyphen, because there's no other way that 'laid off' could be interpreted. But you might think about using a hyphen in this sentence:
When I got laid off my face had an outbreak of acne
Here, 'laid off' could mixed up with the term 'off my face' so to make it clear what part of the sentence 'off' belongs to, and things get confusing, so it would help to use a hyphen and say 'laid-off' instead.
When I got laid-off my face had an outbreak of acne
If you're confused about where the hyphen is on your computer, it is on the bottom row here. Try it out for maximum hyphen fun!
And when it comes to the world of punctuation, there's no sign that imitates the act of physical love more than the hyphen, which helps bring words together as close as they can be, whilst still retaining their individuality.
Hyphens are used to combine words. They are used for:
- prefixes, such as 'pre' (e.g. pre-paid)
- doubled-up vowels, (e.g. de-emphasised)
- clarifying meaning (e.g. to distinguish them from established words, such as post-war)
I was laid off
You don't need to bother using a hyphen, because there's no other way that 'laid off' could be interpreted. But you might think about using a hyphen in this sentence:
When I got laid off my face had an outbreak of acne
Here, 'laid off' could mixed up with the term 'off my face' so to make it clear what part of the sentence 'off' belongs to, and things get confusing, so it would help to use a hyphen and say 'laid-off' instead.
When I got laid-off my face had an outbreak of acne
If you're confused about where the hyphen is on your computer, it is on the bottom row here. Try it out for maximum hyphen fun!
Monday, 9 May 2011
Prefixes: the fuel belt of your words
Recently, MC Grammar agreed to participate in a 10 kilometre marathon.
There's nothing I enjoy more than a marathon. The way your heart skips and pulses, the way the fresh air rushes through your lungs, the way your parachute pants flap in the wind; but I also respect the harsh deal that nature strikes with us pathetic, fallible humans and our constant need for water, so I never attempt a marathon without the use of my handy fuel belt.
As you can see, the fuel belt provides me with two water bottles at the front, so I can have a quick burst of water whenever I'm trying to break through the pain barrier.
And just like my fuel belt, a prefix is something that attached to the front of another word to add something to it.
A prefix is attached to the start of a word, and partly indicates its meaning. Common prefixes include anti- (against), co- (with), mis- (wrong, bad), and trans- (across).
Most prefixes are generally connected to the rest of the word, such as mistake, transvestite and disbelief. However, you need to use a hyphen between the prefix and the rest of the word in these situations:
So as you can see, prefixes are the fuel you need to refine or change a word.
MC Grammar out!
There's nothing I enjoy more than a marathon. The way your heart skips and pulses, the way the fresh air rushes through your lungs, the way your parachute pants flap in the wind; but I also respect the harsh deal that nature strikes with us pathetic, fallible humans and our constant need for water, so I never attempt a marathon without the use of my handy fuel belt.
And just like my fuel belt, a prefix is something that attached to the front of another word to add something to it.
A prefix is attached to the start of a word, and partly indicates its meaning. Common prefixes include anti- (against), co- (with), mis- (wrong, bad), and trans- (across).
Most prefixes are generally connected to the rest of the word, such as mistake, transvestite and disbelief. However, you need to use a hyphen between the prefix and the rest of the word in these situations:
- the rest of the word attached begins with a capital letter, as with anti-Stalin, or
- the same vowel as the prefix ends in, as with: anti-inflationary, de-escalate, micro-organism.
So as you can see, prefixes are the fuel you need to refine or change a word.
MC Grammar out!
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
First Blood: Words on the brink of extinction
BREAKING GRAMMAR NEWS: Reading University (UK) researchers revealed that they have identified the oldest English words, which are tens of thousands of years old.
To do this, they had to what always has to be done in situations such as these: they built a super computer.
Most of the languages from Europe to Asia fall under the category of Indo-European languages, and the vocal sounds they use to express a certain concept are very similar. This means that when new words arise, you can spot them because they don't sound similar. So using their super computer, the boffins at Reading University could work out the age of a word.
'You type in a date in the past or in the future and it will give you a list of words that would have changed going back in time or will change going into the future,' Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading told BBC News.
'From that list you can derive a phrasebook of words you could use if you tried to show up and talk to, for example, William the Conqueror.'
The words they found that had been around for the longest were I, we, two and three. MC Grammar can't be sure why two and three were so popular back then – maybe things only came in sets of two and three – we will never know.
They could also predict what words will be going out of style very soon. They were squeeze, guts, stick and bad as probable first casualties.
'We use a computer to fit a range of models that tell us how rapidly these words evolve,and we can estimate the rates at which these things are replaced through time'.
And now, to tip our grammar hats to these dying words, we can do no better than to celebrate one of them by looking back at the glorious hey day of the word bad, with a cameo by Michael Jackson.
To do this, they had to what always has to be done in situations such as these: they built a super computer.
Most of the languages from Europe to Asia fall under the category of Indo-European languages, and the vocal sounds they use to express a certain concept are very similar. This means that when new words arise, you can spot them because they don't sound similar. So using their super computer, the boffins at Reading University could work out the age of a word.
'You type in a date in the past or in the future and it will give you a list of words that would have changed going back in time or will change going into the future,' Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading told BBC News.
'From that list you can derive a phrasebook of words you could use if you tried to show up and talk to, for example, William the Conqueror.'
The words they found that had been around for the longest were I, we, two and three. MC Grammar can't be sure why two and three were so popular back then – maybe things only came in sets of two and three – we will never know.
They could also predict what words will be going out of style very soon. They were squeeze, guts, stick and bad as probable first casualties.
'We use a computer to fit a range of models that tell us how rapidly these words evolve,and we can estimate the rates at which these things are replaced through time'.
And now, to tip our grammar hats to these dying words, we can do no better than to celebrate one of them by looking back at the glorious hey day of the word bad, with a cameo by Michael Jackson.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
MC Grammar's grammar mistakes
Let's get something clear: you might think that MC Grammar is infallible, but let me tell you, I am just as falliable as the next person. Take, for example, MC Grammar's constant and unregulated grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes.
And make no mistake, there can be no doubt that there will be even more mistakes committed in the future by MC Grammar. Even Emily Bronte, one of the greatest writers of all time, sometimes misspelt her very own sisters' names, and they were pretty much the only people she hung out with. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that even geniuses have their off days.
And make no mistake, there can be no doubt that there will be even more mistakes committed in the future by MC Grammar. Even Emily Bronte, one of the greatest writers of all time, sometimes misspelt her very own sisters' names, and they were pretty much the only people she hung out with. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that even geniuses have their off days.
So, without further ado, here's a list of the mistakes that MC Grammar has committed on this very blog. Enjoy!
- In my blog profile, I put a dash, instead of an en-dash
- In 'Many funky uses of the apostrophe', I wrote 'rules IF' instead of 'rules of''
- In 'The Semi-Colon: What has it done for you latley?' I wrote 'People to avoid it', instead of 'people TEND to avoid it'.
- Also in 'The Semi-colon', I wrote 'I can't go carry on with this charade any more'. It's pretty obvious what was going on there—I was being a verb ho.
- In 'Attack of the similar words!' I wrote 'Probably twins, not clones, or a glitch in the matrix' — that was a very confusing second comma, and it scrambled the whole meaning of my sentence.
- In 'Cliffhanger! Pulling the dangling participle back from the edge of misuse', I wrote 'this is were the participle comes in', using 'were' instead of 'where' That was a pretty embarrassing mistake.
- In 'Commas of Mass Destruction, Part One', I wrote 'the comma in it's mutant from' not 'mutant form'.
- In 'Commas of Mass Destruction Part Two', I wote 'Oxford Comma' in capitals. Why? Thems aren't proper nouns!
- In 'Who's laughing now? The difference between whose and who's', I wrote 'I just asked because it thought it might get an interesting answer'
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
If I were you, I'd read this post on subjunctive verbs
Have you ever noticed that sometimes people say things like 'If I were able to, I would dance all night', or 'If I were president, I'd make it illegal to chew loudly', and you're all like 'hang on friend, why are you talking in the past tense? Don't you mean "If I was able to, I would dance all night", and "If I was President, I'd make it illegal to chew loudly"?'
And then they say 'no way! I mean "if I were able to", because I'm talking in the subjunctive.'
The subjunctive is a verb form that you use when you are talking about scenarios that are not definitely going to happen.
For example, instead of saying 'If I was God', you would generally say 'If I were God', because you're probably not going to become God anytime soon.
The structure of the subjunctive is easy. For all verbs except the past tense of be, the subjunctive is the same as the bare infinitive (infinitive without "to"):
be (past) be (present) Other verbs, (i.e to swim)
I were I be I swim
you were you be you swim
he, she, it were he, she, it be he, she, it swim
we were we be we swim
you were you be you swim
they were they be they swim
As you can see, the subjunctive does not change according to person (I, you, he etc).
Here are some examples with a subjunctive verb:
The farmer insists that the barn be locked at night.
The doctor recommended that he join a gym.
It is essential that we leave as soon as possible
It was necessary that every student submit an essay by Friday
And now, a subjunctive treat for all my grammar brothers and sisters, an amazing home made video by two very clever cats, all about the Spanish subjunctive. It's a bit off topic for us, since I usually talk about Spanish grammar on my other blog 'Señor Gramática - Basta!, Es el momento de la gramática!' but who can resist when these two bright students sing 'And I'm like, Present, Present Subjunctive'
And then they say 'no way! I mean "if I were able to", because I'm talking in the subjunctive.'
The subjunctive is a verb form that you use when you are talking about scenarios that are not definitely going to happen.
For example, instead of saying 'If I was God', you would generally say 'If I were God', because you're probably not going to become God anytime soon.
The structure of the subjunctive is easy. For all verbs except the past tense of be, the subjunctive is the same as the bare infinitive (infinitive without "to"):
be (past) be (present) Other verbs, (i.e to swim)
I were I be I swim
you were you be you swim
he, she, it were he, she, it be he, she, it swim
we were we be we swim
you were you be you swim
they were they be they swim
As you can see, the subjunctive does not change according to person (I, you, he etc).
Here are some examples with a subjunctive verb:
The farmer insists that the barn be locked at night.
The doctor recommended that he join a gym.
It is essential that we leave as soon as possible
It was necessary that every student submit an essay by Friday
And now, a subjunctive treat for all my grammar brothers and sisters, an amazing home made video by two very clever cats, all about the Spanish subjunctive. It's a bit off topic for us, since I usually talk about Spanish grammar on my other blog 'Señor Gramática - Basta!, Es el momento de la gramática!' but who can resist when these two bright students sing 'And I'm like, Present, Present Subjunctive'
Friday, 18 March 2011
Who's laughing now? The difference between whose and who's
A while ago MC Grammar got addicted to wiki answers. It's hard to say what it was about this particular interactive social media that I fell for: perhaps it was the satisfying aspect of asking a question, then an anonymous person taking the time to read over my question, then answer it seriously. After a few months, wiki answers was being taken over more and more by people who didn't believe in dinosaurs, so I just lost interest and took up nature photography instead. But back when I was having good times on wiki answers, sometimes I liked to mix it up a little bit and ask unusual questions. Once, during a late night session on wiki answers, I asked Whose hands are these? It didn't really mean anything, I just asked because it thought it might get an interesting answer. And an interesting answer it did receive, as the response I received back was: These are the hands of Banquo. Thank you, anonymous poster, I enjoyed this answer and its fun approach. I would like to see more of these on the internet.
And this brings us to our post for today, the difference between whose and who. The difference between these two words is a little bit like the difference between your and you're. They sound similar, but they mean very different things.
Always remember that:
Who's = 'who is'
Who's at the door?
Whose = possessive
Whose socks are these?
With the knowledge and understanding of these two words added to the stainless steel toolbox of your grammar skills, you will be able to construct the ultimate spice rack of grammar.
And this brings us to our post for today, the difference between whose and who. The difference between these two words is a little bit like the difference between your and you're. They sound similar, but they mean very different things.
Always remember that:
Who's = 'who is'
Who's at the door?
Whose = possessive
Whose socks are these?
With the knowledge and understanding of these two words added to the stainless steel toolbox of your grammar skills, you will be able to construct the ultimate spice rack of grammar.
Monday, 28 February 2011
'Commadore Norrington, my effects please': The difference between affect and effect
The difference between affect and effect has confused more than a few people. And make no mistake, sometimes even MC Grammar can end up throwing himself on his four-poster bed, howling in frustration at this very tricky area of grammar.
But lucky for us, the difference between affect and effect is a lot simpler than you might think. The thing is, effect and affect are homonyms, which means that even though they sound the same, they have different meanings. Read on, grammar children.
Affect means:
1. To have an influence or cause a change in something
Too much sunlight affected the quality of the photograph
2. To act on the emotions of, to touch, to move.
The arguments and fighting affected me badly
3. To attack or infect
Rabies affects the brain
Effect, on the other hand, means:
1. A result
The drugs took effect immediately
There was more positive information available about immigration, effecting a change attitudes towards immigrants.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result
The president's threats to kill everyone had no effect on the protesters
3. Something that produces a specific impression, or supports a general design or intention:
The fireworks were the best effects of the concert
If you ever get lost, there's a handy way of remembering the difference. In the movie 'Pirates of the Caribbean', Captain Jack Sparrow has managed to get off from being arrested. Demanding his stuff back, he says: 'Commodore Norrington, my effects please, and my hat'. When Sparrow asks for his effects he means his sword, his compass, and his belt. These are his effects, meaning the things that make him Captain Jack Sparrow. Your effects are the things that add a little something to the occasion, which is why fireworks are effects, or special animation techniques in a movie are effects.
But lucky for us, the difference between affect and effect is a lot simpler than you might think. The thing is, effect and affect are homonyms, which means that even though they sound the same, they have different meanings. Read on, grammar children.
Affect means:
1. To have an influence or cause a change in something
Too much sunlight affected the quality of the photograph
2. To act on the emotions of, to touch, to move.
The arguments and fighting affected me badly
3. To attack or infect
Rabies affects the brain
Effect, on the other hand, means:
1. A result
The drugs took effect immediately
There was more positive information available about immigration, effecting a change attitudes towards immigrants.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result
The president's threats to kill everyone had no effect on the protesters
3. Something that produces a specific impression, or supports a general design or intention:
The fireworks were the best effects of the concert
If you ever get lost, there's a handy way of remembering the difference. In the movie 'Pirates of the Caribbean', Captain Jack Sparrow has managed to get off from being arrested. Demanding his stuff back, he says: 'Commodore Norrington, my effects please, and my hat'. When Sparrow asks for his effects he means his sword, his compass, and his belt. These are his effects, meaning the things that make him Captain Jack Sparrow. Your effects are the things that add a little something to the occasion, which is why fireworks are effects, or special animation techniques in a movie are effects.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Everything's not going to be alright
From a fan:
Dear MC Grammar. What's your position on owning and keeping firearms in the home?
Dear fan,
Firstly, thanks for writing. And thanks for asking this important question. What is my position on firearms in the home? Well, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that I am very pro-firearms. I believe that every home should have two or three fully-loaded firearms, and that these should be placed within reaching distance of your bed, or wherever you sleep at night. If you have a habit of going to the bathroom during the night, and your bathroom is not close to where you sleep, such as in the case where you don't have a walk-in wardrobe, you should also keep a gun under your bathroom sink, or hanging from a shower curtain.
But the thing about this is that these firearms should only be for one specific purpose – to fight off incorrectly used words.
That's right, even in your own home, late at night when you are just relaxing with your loved ones, among your own hard-earned possessions, words that are not actually words can suddenly be breaking through your front window, traumatising your children and making love to your wife. What are you going to do when that happens? Are you going to just sit there and let the scene burn into your retinas? Or are you going to pull out your weapon and defend your loved ones like a warrior!?
Of course, by 'weapon', I mean your knowlege of grammar, and by 'firearm', I mean your astute oneness with language. And nowhere are these devices self-defense needed more than in the case of the confusion surrounding the words alright and all right.
A lot of people are confused about what the difference is between alright and all right. Luckily, this is a pretty easy problem to sort out, because alright is not a real word, in the same vein that 'alot' is not a word.
The best thing to do here is to remember this saying that Bill Walsh penned in his book, 'Lapsing into a Comma': 'alright is not all right'
Snap, Bill Walsh.
And don't forget, grammar children, always keep your weapons of grammar-knowledge loaded, and in an easy-to-reach place around the house.
Dear MC Grammar. What's your position on owning and keeping firearms in the home?
Dear fan,
Firstly, thanks for writing. And thanks for asking this important question. What is my position on firearms in the home? Well, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that I am very pro-firearms. I believe that every home should have two or three fully-loaded firearms, and that these should be placed within reaching distance of your bed, or wherever you sleep at night. If you have a habit of going to the bathroom during the night, and your bathroom is not close to where you sleep, such as in the case where you don't have a walk-in wardrobe, you should also keep a gun under your bathroom sink, or hanging from a shower curtain.
But the thing about this is that these firearms should only be for one specific purpose – to fight off incorrectly used words.
That's right, even in your own home, late at night when you are just relaxing with your loved ones, among your own hard-earned possessions, words that are not actually words can suddenly be breaking through your front window, traumatising your children and making love to your wife. What are you going to do when that happens? Are you going to just sit there and let the scene burn into your retinas? Or are you going to pull out your weapon and defend your loved ones like a warrior!?
Of course, by 'weapon', I mean your knowlege of grammar, and by 'firearm', I mean your astute oneness with language. And nowhere are these devices self-defense needed more than in the case of the confusion surrounding the words alright and all right.
A lot of people are confused about what the difference is between alright and all right. Luckily, this is a pretty easy problem to sort out, because alright is not a real word, in the same vein that 'alot' is not a word.
The best thing to do here is to remember this saying that Bill Walsh penned in his book, 'Lapsing into a Comma': 'alright is not all right'
Snap, Bill Walsh.
And don't forget, grammar children, always keep your weapons of grammar-knowledge loaded, and in an easy-to-reach place around the house.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Dr Whom and the attack of the archaic language
Try to get your head around this: scientists believe that there was a time when neanderthals and modern humans existed at the same time. Here's a picture comparing a modern human and a neanderthal.
But the neanderthals ended up dying out for some reason. We can't be sure what happened to them (although some evidence suggests that we ate them) but what we can be sure of is that the period of co-existence must have been a pretty crazy time for neanderthals and modern humans alike. They probably spent their whole day just staring at each other, thinking 'wow, you're sort of like me, but at the same time, you're not' Maybe modern humans just ended up eating the neanderthals just to deal with the craziness of the situation.
But what you don't even realise, grammar brothers and sisters, is that we are living in just as crazy a time right now, with the co-existence of the words who and whom.
As you might know, some of us have the idea that 'whom' is the more correct version of who. This is not true. Whom and who have different functions, and back in their glorious heyday they lived side by side, two versions of the same species.
Traditionally, whom was used if you were referring to the object of a sentence, for example:
He is the one to whom I owe my life.
If you are referring to the subject of a dependant or a ('subordinate') clause then you would use 'who'
He's just a great guy who cares about safety around the home.
But stop right there. Before you log off your computer and run out into the streets, throwing out 'whom' in everything you say without a care for who can hear you, let me explain something. For a long time, the use of 'whom' has been getting used less and less, making it archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.
You might respond to this in horror, you might say, 'but just because people don't know how to use grammar properly doesn't mean that we should just lay down and die like dogs'. But the thing is, language changes all the time. In old English, spoken 1000 years ago, the word for 'who' was 'hwa'. Imagine how pissed off people back then must have been when all those uneducated punks, with their ridiculously long trendy cloth shoes, started saying who instead? If microsoft word had existed back then, it would have immediately flagged who as a misspelling, but after people had been saying it for a few years, everyone just gave up and started saying who instead.
And the same goes for whom. In 1989, the Oxford English Dictionary printed for the first time that whom was 'no longer current in natural colloquial speech', and they were right. In most cases, who is now used. You can still use whom in the traditional way, but if you do, you will no longer be speaking what is known as 'plain' English or 'colloquial' English. You'll be speaking using archaic words out of context, and that's just as incorrect as using the wrong grammar or the wrong tense, so what's the point of that?
There is, however, one use of whom that is still alive and kicking is when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example:
To whom it may concern
To whom have you been speaking?
With whom will we be coming to the meeting?
Of course, in these cases, you could always say something like 'who have you been speaking with?' or 'who will we be coming to the meeting with?' and it would be just as correct. That's the beauty of language – there's more than one way of doing things.
So what did happen to our neanderthal brothers and sisters? Well, there's not a lot of scientific evidence to back me up, but I like to think that neanderthals and modern humans put aside their differences and their animal skins and just got freaky with each other, leading their DNA to be incorporated into ours. But there are other dreamers like me – enjoy this montage from the movie 'Clan of the Cave Bear', where an early modern human is adopted and lives with neanderthals.
But the neanderthals ended up dying out for some reason. We can't be sure what happened to them (although some evidence suggests that we ate them) but what we can be sure of is that the period of co-existence must have been a pretty crazy time for neanderthals and modern humans alike. They probably spent their whole day just staring at each other, thinking 'wow, you're sort of like me, but at the same time, you're not' Maybe modern humans just ended up eating the neanderthals just to deal with the craziness of the situation.
But what you don't even realise, grammar brothers and sisters, is that we are living in just as crazy a time right now, with the co-existence of the words who and whom.
As you might know, some of us have the idea that 'whom' is the more correct version of who. This is not true. Whom and who have different functions, and back in their glorious heyday they lived side by side, two versions of the same species.
Traditionally, whom was used if you were referring to the object of a sentence, for example:
He is the one to whom I owe my life.
If you are referring to the subject of a dependant or a ('subordinate') clause then you would use 'who'
He's just a great guy who cares about safety around the home.
But stop right there. Before you log off your computer and run out into the streets, throwing out 'whom' in everything you say without a care for who can hear you, let me explain something. For a long time, the use of 'whom' has been getting used less and less, making it archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.
You might respond to this in horror, you might say, 'but just because people don't know how to use grammar properly doesn't mean that we should just lay down and die like dogs'. But the thing is, language changes all the time. In old English, spoken 1000 years ago, the word for 'who' was 'hwa'. Imagine how pissed off people back then must have been when all those uneducated punks, with their ridiculously long trendy cloth shoes, started saying who instead? If microsoft word had existed back then, it would have immediately flagged who as a misspelling, but after people had been saying it for a few years, everyone just gave up and started saying who instead.
And the same goes for whom. In 1989, the Oxford English Dictionary printed for the first time that whom was 'no longer current in natural colloquial speech', and they were right. In most cases, who is now used. You can still use whom in the traditional way, but if you do, you will no longer be speaking what is known as 'plain' English or 'colloquial' English. You'll be speaking using archaic words out of context, and that's just as incorrect as using the wrong grammar or the wrong tense, so what's the point of that?
There is, however, one use of whom that is still alive and kicking is when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example:
To whom it may concern
To whom have you been speaking?
With whom will we be coming to the meeting?
Of course, in these cases, you could always say something like 'who have you been speaking with?' or 'who will we be coming to the meeting with?' and it would be just as correct. That's the beauty of language – there's more than one way of doing things.
So what did happen to our neanderthal brothers and sisters? Well, there's not a lot of scientific evidence to back me up, but I like to think that neanderthals and modern humans put aside their differences and their animal skins and just got freaky with each other, leading their DNA to be incorporated into ours. But there are other dreamers like me – enjoy this montage from the movie 'Clan of the Cave Bear', where an early modern human is adopted and lives with neanderthals.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
MC Grammar, what's the deal with you?
I can hear you asking this question. You want to know how I got like this, right? You want to know how I became an amazing, grammar-knowing, language-loving, word-saying type of guy. Well, let me tell you, it runs in the family.
Recently I found a whole pile of my mother's letters, dated from 1980 to 1982. She died a few years ago, so I took them home to read them and hear what she was up to in the early 80's, apart from having the perm of a god. And let me tell you, these letters revealed something fascinating about her.
My mother had seriously amazing grammar and punctuation skills, probably even better than MC Grammar.
So that's the deal about me, I got it from my momma.
Recently I found a whole pile of my mother's letters, dated from 1980 to 1982. She died a few years ago, so I took them home to read them and hear what she was up to in the early 80's, apart from having the perm of a god. And let me tell you, these letters revealed something fascinating about her.
My mother had seriously amazing grammar and punctuation skills, probably even better than MC Grammar.
So that's the deal about me, I got it from my momma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
