<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on 10 flagrant grammar mistakes that make you look stupid ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T17:56:38-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Um, sorry folks but this really not GRAMMAR at all]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3671720]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I know this article is way old but it came up very high on a Google search for grammar problems, but if this the best anyone can do .... Apart from point #10 none of the others are grammar - they are spelling or definition only - although #8 is grammar related. See my response here: http://rulesofgrammar.co/10-flagrant-grammar-mistakes-that-make-you-look-stupid/ ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3671720]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gabbi_mcdonald]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 20:44:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Thank You!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3548322]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I don't know why this subject gets to me so much, especially since I too probably commit all kinds of grammatical errors to which I am completely oblivious.Two you mentioned that have been making me INSANE these past few years are:loose vs. lose -  you did NOT &quot;loose&quot; the game.  Arrrgggg. then vs. than - How can anyone who can read get these mixed up?Another one I see repeatedly is:are vs. ourwe are not going to ARE house.  @#&amp;%T~~!I understand there are typos, I've noticed my fingers have learned certain patterns that they insist on completing despite my knowing the correct spelling/word (like when I start to type &quot;though&quot; but end up with &quot;thought&quot;), but people are so consistent in their improper use of these very simple words that I am left staring at their email wondering how &quot;a trained professional&quot; can be so ignorant.  My best guess is that they haven't read much and therefore heard words but never saw them.  It bugs me too that people SAY &quot;are&quot; instead of &quot;our.&quot;  They are not homonyms.  They sound different.  Our sounds like hour.  At least it used to...&quot;Could care less&quot; bugs me too because of the obviousness of it.  How can you say that phrase and not notice that you're saying the opposite of what you mean?OK, I feel better.For now.Oh, HA HA I just remembered, a relative of mine once made her own wedding invitations.  After reading mine I asked if they'd all been sent out.  They had.  I was too late.  I didn't see any point in informing her that she had put &quot;Absolutely no gifts!&quot; on the invitation, but then started the body of it with: &quot;We request your presents...&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3548322]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[LLL3]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:22:23 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hit and Miss?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3548187]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What is illogical about &quot;hit and miss&quot;?  It means the results are unpredictable. Given your interest in language I find it difficult  to understand why that is unclear. Do you also object to someone saying that (the result) is a coin toss?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3548187]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tumbleweed_Biff]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:44:37 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Have to add my peeves.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488992]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[In addition to the ones in the initial post (some spoken, some written):If and when. (ugh)Orientated.Try and do.nucular (not grammatical, per se, but mind-blowingly ignorant)I feel badly.&quot;Myself&quot; instead of &quot;me&quot;&quot;literally&quot; instead of &quot;figuratively&quot;&quot;number&quot; versus &quot;amount&quot; (Can you have a smaller &quot;number&quot; of water? No. Can you have a smaller &quot;amount&quot; of people? No.)&quot;less&quot; versus &quot;fewer&quot; (Can you have &quot;fewer&quot; water? No. Can you have &quot;less&quot; people? No.)Saying &quot;like&quot; every third word (distracting and unnecessary, at the least)&quot;Proactive&quot; instead of &quot;active&quot;&quot;Tunafish&quot; (do you say &quot;chickenbird&quot;?)&quot;Set'lers&quot; instead of &quot;settle-ers&quot;&quot;Etcetra&quot; instead of &quot;et-cet-er-a&quot;&quot;50's&quot; instead of &quot;'50s&quot;&quot;Realator&quot; instead &quot;Real-tor&quot;&quot;Anxious&quot; instead of &quot;eager&quot;&quot;Could care less&quot; instead of &quot;couldn't care less&quot;&quot;Obtuse&quot; instead of &quot;abstruse&quot;&quot;Have got&quot; instead of &quot;have&quot;I could go on for years. I'm all for the evolution of language, and I'm fine with a certain amount of difference between colloquial language and formal language. I use terms and grammar colloquially that I would NEVER use formally. It can lend a &quot;flavor&quot; to language that absolute proper usage sometimes can't. I'll fully admit that. But language has a certain mathematical construct to it, and if you want to get your thought across to the largest number of people with the most comprehension as quickly and efficiently as possible, you have to follow those rules. Two + two equals four. Your message can change dramatically, depending on how you construct your sentence and where you put your punctuation. For example (e.g., not i.e., by the way):    You will be required to work twenty four-hour shifts.    You will be required to work twenty-four hour shifts.    You will be required to work twenty-four-hour shifts.Those are three COMPLETELY different meanings, and writing the wrong sentence for what you actually mean could be catastrophic to your message.Don't underestimate the power of proper, &quot;mathematical&quot; language. There is a logic to it, and not recognizing that can -- at the least -- make you look like a moron. At the most, it could start a world war. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488992]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NerveBag]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:32:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Sad, though...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488982]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Too many dictionaries have succumbed to the tenet &quot;if enough people use it, we'll call it okay.&quot; Just because everyone does it doesn't make it &quot;right.&quot; &quot;Impact&quot; is a noun, not a verb. &quot;Affect&quot; would be a better choice. I will admit, though, that there are certain nouns, like &quot;access,&quot; that have evolved into verbs in a more cohesive, logical manner. &quot;I can have access to the data&quot; is arguably more circuitous than &quot;I can access the data.&quot; It's a gray area, I'll admit. There are many of those areas in English. But there are many that should NOT be gray areas that have become gray areas. I'm not arguing with you, per se, just saying that not all gray areas are created equal.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488982]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NerveBag]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:56:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree, but...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488980]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Improper grammar and punctuation take me out of a thought like a slap in the face. But there's a line between pedantry and common sense. &quot;...the company with whom I will do business&quot; is pompous, awkward language. &quot;The company I will do business with&quot; is perfectly acceptable and flows much better in the grammatical ear. You CAN end a sentence with a preposition. Just don't ADD a preposition when it's unnecessary, as in &quot;Where are you at.&quot;Just sayin'. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488980]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NerveBag]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:47:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&amp;quot;try and&amp;quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488974]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No offense, seriously... but &quot;try and&quot;? That's not helping our cause. LOL You don't try AND do something. You try TO do something. You wouldn't say, &quot;The government is trying and raise our taxes,&quot; would you? I sure hope not. The government is trying TO raise our taxes. &quot;Try and figure out&quot; are two separate things. I'm going to try. Then I'm going to figure out. I can forgive the occasional typo or omitted word, and I'm not trying and be a jerk, but &quot;try and&quot; is not proper English.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488974]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NerveBag]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:40:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[basic grammar can completely change the meaning of your writing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488973]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[For heaven's sake. You think grammar and punctuation are arbitrary whims of some elite group of condescending jerks who want to make you feel inferior? Grow up. If I had a nickle for every email I've received that I had to ask the sender for clarification because their grammar and/or punctuation were indecipherable, I'd be a billionaire. Take this punctuation example:    You will be required to work twenty four-hour shifts.    You will be required to work twenty-four hour shifts.    You will be required to work twenty-four-hour shifts.Those are three COMPLETELY different meanings. And if you promise one of them to someone when you actually meant one of the others, you might be screwed. If you don't &quot;get&quot; the difference in the meanings, then you have a language deficiency of some sort or a history of severely ineffectual language educators. Not a judgment -- simply an observation.Grammar and punctuation are THE MATH OF LANGUAGE! I'm marginal at the math of math , but the math of language is crystalline and obvious in my mind. Just because I'm not great at complex math doesn't lead me to conclude that it's a useless hobby of a group of pedants who want to make me feel inferior. I'm just not wired for it like they are, and my completely nonsensical answers to their mathematical questions would elicit the same rolling eyes and guffaws and outrage that yours do to us.You may not appreciate the subtleties and &quot;mathematics&quot; that make good language better than bad, but some of us do. If you feel put down, I'm sorry. I don't believe most people's intent here is to put people down, it's to elevate the English language.Long live the grammarians!Peace.NerveBag]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488973]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NerveBag]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:30:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Testify!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488957]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I started an account here just to second a few of these emotions. I've been telling people this thing about prepositions for years, but they adhere so strictly to the tenet because they can't comprehend the logic or semantics behind it. You can't ADD a preposition to the end of sentence when it's unnecessary. &quot;Where are you at?&quot; is stupid. &quot;Where are you?&quot; is sufficient. &quot;What did you step on?&quot; is perfectly acceptable. &quot;On what did you step?&quot; makes you sound like a pompous idiot. There's a fine balance between logical semantic construction and just plain... awkwardness. Kudos to you for being one of the few who &quot;gets it.&quot; I don't know anything about you, but I already like the cut of your jib. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3488957]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NerveBag]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:06:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Good/Well]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3483760]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This is the one that gets me and I never realized it until someone else pointed it out.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3483760]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gbrannan]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:53:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Grammar discussion]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3469286]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I thoroughly enjoyed reading through some of the comments about grammar, and noting different people's sensitivities. Before correcting others, it is probably a good idea to recognize one's own motivation for doing so. When receiving correction, it's probably a good idea to drop the defensive cloak and have a look to see what one may learn. In this day and age of &quot;high-speed&quot; everything, I hope not to see the purity of our language thrown out the proverbial window. Cheers, all!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3469286]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[HollyLouise]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 04:36:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA['could care less']]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3469283]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Actually, either works depending on what the writer/speak really means. &quot;I could care less&quot; means one has at least a modicum or minimum of concern, and if unkind, could, in fact, care less than one does. &quot;Couldn't care less,&quot; of course means their amount of concern is rock bottom. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3469283]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[HollyLouise]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 04:23:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[viri, virii, viruses]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467440]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I know that virii may look correct, but 'viruses' is the correct plural for virus. For 'virii' to be correct (wandering into Latin land with this), the singular would have to be 'virius' . In fact, the plurals for words ending in 'us' is a bit of a morass. Octopus/octopi, radius/radii, campus/campuses, anus/anuses, (campi? ani?), and one to throw a spanner into the works, genus/genera.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467440]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aspir8or]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:13:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Accuracy also helps speakers of other languages.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467355]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have written a lot of technical documentation including requirements, which may contain a lot of acronyms, and you have to be very exact as one character off and it's another acronym and the plane could fall out of the sky, or in my case, a cellular call could drop.Even beyond the acronyms, using proper English helps when you have a groups in Israel, Poland, India and China working on the project. In other countries when they teach English it's usually the proper form as that's the only common ground for communication. Even avoiding contractions helps foreigners, especially its and it's. When not contracted it is more obvious which one to use. (However, then people may be more likely to incorrectly use the apostrophe to make its possessive.)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467355]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[PReinie]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:48:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Setup / set up]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467337]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Setup is a noun not a verb. &quot;Set up your configuration and when you're done, show me your setup.&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467337]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[PReinie]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:57:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[LOL]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467268]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Welcha -U mad mine Day!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467268]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gr8Music]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 06:47:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Grammatical errors !!!!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467290]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This comment is from the UK side of the pond. Many of the so called grammatical errors are not so much errors as the styles of the two different usages of the English language. Here in the UK I do not recall the word  &quot;you're&quot;, if that is how one spells it, ever being used. Note also my use of &quot;that is&quot; which gives the expression much more emphasis. Other examples are the use of  &quot;can't&quot;  instead of &quot;cannot&quot; and &quot;won't&quot; instead of &quot;will not&quot;  I am not an English scholar, I just like elegant language.    As Winston Churchill once said in the House of Commons:-    &quot;It is the kind of language up with which we will not put &quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467290]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[chris.pratt@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 06:42:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[grammer mistakes]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467045]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If you think grammer is bad now, wait until the generation growing up on texting muddles the language.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3467045]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[LSWVN]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:25:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&amp;quot;English&amp;quot; - in the USA? Please!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3466950]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The problem is not isolated to the U.S.  For example, the term &quot;cockney&quot; comes to mind.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3466950]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jrhalli89]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:17:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[tripping and falling on your own sword]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3466901]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No: specticalYes: spectacle]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-256688-3466901]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ralphclark]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:58:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

