語法來源： Englishpedia帶來您的求知慾和您的問題，并且我們推測我們古怪的語言 |
當我通過公園今晨走我的狗，我注意了標誌說， 「遏制和清潔在您的狗以後」。
為什麼是奇怪的這？ 兩三個原因。 為一，誰被創造標誌使用了複合形容詞形式(清潔)而不是動詞形式 清掃。 當然，意思是清楚的： 如果您的狗船尾，挖出它并且處理它。
另一reaon在用途在 遏制. 什麼那個手段？ 在您的狗排糞之後，分配他到遏制，直到船尾警察到達？ 或更壞，作為和您的狗對遏制和等那裡公園警察免除您？
我不知道為什麼你將採取狗對公園遏制它。 某人能否請解釋那對我？
叫的新的美好的生存網絡系列 新婚佳偶，幾乎死，雖然瞄準一個逗人喜愛的詞對比，反而謀殺英文。
聯合的詞 新婚佳偶 提到最近結婚了的人，不到行動是 新星期三，當時 幾乎死 仅提到行動幾乎過期。
所以，建築完全地unparallel。 反而，應該寫它 新星期三，幾乎死 因此它提到二次平行的行動，不對一個人或人和一次行動。
Newlybutchered，最近錯誤.
I received an interesting e-mail from a reader named Todd, who was enquiring about the propriety of using the constructions about how and reason why.
I replied that their biggest sin is their utter redundancy. How, reason and why can, depending on the sentence, stand by themselves and do the job solo. About how is also unspecific and therefore unclear in most instances.
Todd himself later mailed some good examples, one of which I’ll shamelessly repeat here:
Original:
"The Usual Suspects is a 1995 film about how five criminals are brought together and embark on a crime spree, with a spectacular plot twist at the conclusion."
Todd’s revision:
"The Usual Suspects is a 1995 film about five criminals who are brought together and embark on a crime spree, with a spectacular plot twist at the conclusion."
(The sentence could further be rendered more readable by deleting and embark.)
Todd didn’t provide any reason why examples, but here’s a particularly egregious one:
"The reason why I’m hungry is because I haven’t eaten in two days."
First off, you can’t follow a linking verb (is) with an adverb (because), so that whole part is out. Second, and back to my main point, either reason, because or why is sufficient by itself.
Revisions:
"The reason I’m hungry is that I haven’t eaten in two days."
"I’m hungry because I haven’t eaten in two days."
So much for my diet, eh? LOL
I rushed this site into existence to take over for Grammar Sucks for a few reasons, one of them dealing with server-side issues. I was switching servers and wanted to retire Grammar Sucks (and use it as a 301 redirect only).
Thus, I slapped this site together and got it up quickly. When it came to titling it, my official URL was and is GrammarSource, but that doesn’t say much about what the site is all about, even with a subtitle under it.
I came up with what I thought was a brilliant idea to create my own word to signify that this site was all about English writing and grammar usage, so I coined the word Englishapedia.
My first impulse was to use Englishipedia, copying Wikipedia, but I thought that would be too obvious a rip-off. Then I toyed with Englishopedia, morphing the generic word encyclopedia.
Now that I look at what I have wrought, and I hate the "a" version. The other two seem much more suited.
If anyone would like to influence my choice over the next few days, please just e-mail me.
Welcome to my new site, which takes over for Grammar Sucks.
The latter site was great and dates back to 1997 or so, but with sucks in the title, my e-mail box was constantly filled with every spammy sexual-perversion offer in the universe. I just got sick of it.
So, welcome to Grammar Source.
I should be back on track here soon with new and substantial postings. To make an excuse, I switched servers this past week, whichI thought that would take a day or less to do. It ended up consuming at least four days, and there are still glitches.
So, to solve the problem, I’m placed Grammar Source on an entirely new hosting service. Things should be fine from now on.
Six-month-old babies in TV ads who speak English like 35-year-old Harvard MBA graduates?
Dogs and other animals that can speak English as well (or as poorly) as your typically addled teenager next door?
(Or lizards that can dance?)
I’d rather see humans’ barking than dogs’ speaking English, or grown adults’ "mewling and puking" like infants rather than infants’ peorating about consumer products. At least it would more accurately depict the human condition.
Okay, I’ve gotten used to the use of the misspelled word judgement on Iron Chef. However, now it’s also being used on ESPN Sports Center.
I did a little dictionary research to see if judgement, the misspelling, has gained acceptability. The answer is yes and no. One dictionary lists the "e" spelling as an alternative, but then goes on to illustrate the use judgement by citing sentence examples using judgment, the correct spelling. It also defined judgement narrowly, saying it was "the legal document stating the reason for a judicial opinion."
Bottom line–judgment is the only spelling, deriving from the French word jugement (which does use an "e," curiously).
No one can ever accuse the authors of our Constitution of being grammar experts. Take the Second Amendment, subject of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. It reads:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, ignoring the fact that, in the 18th century, people often capitalized nouns for emphasis, the sentence still has structural problems. It should read, "A well-regulated militia’s being necessary…." Being is a gerund and thus must be preceded by a possessive. Also, the comma after Arms separates the subject from the verb and is a real no-no.
What about the amendment’s meaning?
In irony of ironies, considering how poor I am, I woke up this morning and opened the shutters in my living room to see the sun rising from the east and said outloud (yes, I do talk to myself), "The world is my oyster." Of course, it’s not, and actually I said, "The woild is my oyster," mimicking a Mafioso or someone from stereotypical New Jersey/New York.
That got me to look up the origins of the saying, and it is indeed something from The Bard in The Merry Wives of Windsor.
Said Pistol to Falstaff therein:
Why, then the world’s mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open.
Maybe I’ll just fall on my sword. LOL
A site called the Drudge Retort, a liberal answer to the Drudge Report, was ordered by the Associated Press (AP) to cease and desist using snippets of AP articles in its own articles this past week.
Drudge II complied, but objected that copyright law permits the "fair use" of copyrighted material, in limited portions, for scholarly and academic purposes.
I doubt I’d consider either Drudge I or Drudge II scholarly or academic, but I defend their right to quote from published sources and comment on them. This is the meaning, to me, of a free press. I do it all the time here and on my other blogs.
Anyway, a spat ensued, and eventually AP backed away from its legal threat and said the organization "needed to rethink" matters.
What really galled AP, from what I can determine from reading between the lines, is that Drudge and other sites were using the quotations as tie-ins to advertising.
If that’s the case, then AP has a good argument.
