The Dangling Modifiers Club: A place for the grammar geeks

[LarryN]

Originally Posted by cutaway

Sorry, I'm just upset that I lossed my socks.

[I-IV-V]

Originally Posted by cutaway

Sorry, I'm just upset that I lossed my socks.

hilarious, haven't seen that one before

[projam619]

Originally Posted by wundergussy

Descriptivists make their argument sound valid, but at the end of the day you need something on which to hang your hat. Prescriptivism gets my vote.

Also, for anyone really interested in the Pre v. De-scriptivist war, check out David Foster Wallace's essay on Garner's Dictionary which is essentially a history/commentary on the split.

I agree to an extent, but it can get problematic. Where does on draw the line in such prescriptive matters? Why should we listen to the people who make the rules? Plus, language shouldn't be stiff. Personally I can appreciate the creativity behind rap lyrics as much as the prose of Henry James.

[Scooter Burbank]

Originally Posted by projam619

I agree to an extent, but it can get problematic. Where does on draw the line in such prescriptive matters? Why should we listen to the people who make the rules? Plus, language shouldn't be stiff. Personally I can appreciate the creativity behind rap lyrics as much as the prose of Henry James.

I choose to dangle my modifier on the descriptivist side.

[phoenix 7]

Originally Posted by crawz

The posts that begin like this always throw me:

Recommend me a compressor

That doesn't look or sound correct to me. But I'm no grammar scholar. The object of recommend here is me... like Can you recommend me for this job?

Probably a better way would be:
Recommendations on a compressor?

I prefer this:

Recommend a compressor.

Just leave "me" out of it. It's fewer words (economy is a virtue) and correct English.

[wundergussy]

Originally Posted by projam619

I agree to an extent, but it can get problematic. Where does on draw the line in such prescriptive matters? Why should we listen to the people who make the rules? Plus, language shouldn't be stiff. Personally I can appreciate the creativity behind rap lyrics as much as the prose of Henry James.

I suppose I see a difference in verbal usage and written usage. And I also see a difference in written usage in art vs. written usage in formal writing/communication. Basically, if the purpose of the writing is simply to communicate (even, say, weird fiction where the ideas are bizarre, but the language is not meant to take center stage) then I think the writer should strive to follow usage rules as much as possible. BUT, if the writing is meant to either mimic dialects or be creative itself, then by all means break rules.

Keep in mind however that most dialects also have rules; Black English as a dialect can be just as pedantic as Standard Written English. This all comes down to the writer's number one rule: know your audience. If your audience has shown up to be wowed at your ability to bend the language to your will, then smash apart the rules with a sledgehammer. But, if your audience has shown up to know your ideas without having to ponder at the way they are presented, then please stick to proper usage. It exists for a reason: clarity.

Also, it's important to remember the best breakers-of-usage-rules have been masters of the rules first.

[Prof.Fuzz]

Originally Posted by wundergussy

This all comes down to the writer's number one rule: know your audience.

Also, it's important to remember the best breakers-of-usage-rules have been masters of the rules first.

These two points encapsulate the rules for good writing. Know your audience, know the rules, season to taste.

Well said, Wundergussy.

[cutaway]

Originally Posted by One_Four_Five

hilarious, haven't seen that one before

my wife's a history professor. helped her grade undergrad essays. you'd be shocked at what little intellect it takes to get into school these days.

Just off the top of my head:

"The weather was vary treacherous for Washington and his men."

[A-Bone]

Originally Posted by Prof.Fuzz

These two points encapsulate the rules for good writing. Know your audience, know the rules, season to taste.

Well said, Wundergussy.

Agreed.

[A-Bone]

Originally Posted by cutaway

my wife's a history professor. helped her grade undergrad essays. you'd be shocked at what little intellect it takes to get into school these days.

Just off the top of my head:

"The weather was vary treacherous for Washington and his men."

I worked as a TA as an undergraduate cinema major, and the quality of the writing on the hundreds of essays I read and graded was eye opening, to say the least.

They were so riddled with errors that I worked up a standard response that I appended to my paragraph evaluating their content.

"This paper contains numerous grammatical, syntactical, typographical, and spelling errors that careful proofreading would have caught. Proofreading and correcting the paper would make it easier for the reader to concentrate on the content of the ideas presented, while also giving the impression of care and attention to detail in the assignment."

[84Bravo]

Up here, in Wisconsin, when the temperature dips and the snow blows, some folks like to refer to the "windshield factor." Hey, it does make sense....

[Ferg Deluxe]

I've read six pages of this thread and no one has mentioned my two biggest (current) grammar pet peeves!

1. Using the word "of" instead of "have". For example, "I would of attended Yale if I had better grammer. And spelling."

2. Pronoun abuse. As in: "This is a team that plays aggressive." Oh really? Is Aggressive the name of a new game that this team plays? Every dumb jock athlete is doing it these days, and the announcers are joining the club. Friggin' Dierdorf does it constantly. Or perhaps I should say, he does it constant. What's worse, I'm starting to see advertisers pick it up as a way to sound cool, I guess. I keep hearing a commercial on the radio that says, "Live solid, bank solid" or some other dumb shit like that.

[I-IV-V]

Originally Posted by Ferg Deluxe

I've read six pages of this thread and no one has mentioned my two biggest (current) grammar pet peeves!

1. Using the word "of" instead of "have". For example, "I would of attended Yale if I had better grammer. And spelling."

2. Pronoun abuse. As in: "This is a team that plays aggressive." Oh really? Is Aggressive the name of a new game that this team plays? Every dumb jock athlete is doing it these days, and the announcers are joining the club. Friggin' Dierdorf does it constantly. Or perhaps I should say, he does it constant. What's worse, I'm starting to see advertisers pick it up as a way to sound cool, I guess. I keep hearing a commercial on the radio that says, "Live solid, bank solid" or some other dumb shit like that.

I think it's been covered.

Originally Posted by cutaway

i should of just stayed out of this thread.

Originally Posted by wundergussy

"Should have." But smiley probably indicates kidding!

Originally Posted by cutaway

Irregardless of kidding, or not.

[mbargav]

Originally Posted by Ferg Deluxe

2. Pronoun abuse. As in: "This is a team that plays aggressive." Oh really? Is Aggressive the name of a new game that this team plays? Every dumb jock athlete is doing it these days, and the announcers are joining the club. Friggin' Dierdorf does it constantly. Or perhaps I should say, he does it constant. What's worse, I'm starting to see advertisers pick it up as a way to sound cool, I guess. I keep hearing a commercial on the radio that says, "Live solid, bank solid" or some other dumb shit like that.

This example is a perfectly understood colloquialism. Wouldn't the listener easily piece together the full sentence to be "this is a team that plays aggressive [football]?" Is anybody going to be confused and think the first team is in fact playing a team named "aggressive"?

At some point it seems to me that usage persnicketiness becomes less a way of appreciating the English language, and more a way of making people seem stupider than they actually are.

I like the old George Eliot quote:

"Correct English is the slang of prigs who write history and essays."

[Ferg Deluxe]

Originally Posted by mbargav

This example is a perfectly understood colloquialism. Wouldn't the listener easily piece together the full sentence to be "this is a team that plays aggressive [football]?" Is anybody going to be confused and think the first team is in fact playing a team named "aggressive"?

At some point it seems to me that usage persnicketiness becomes less a way of appreciating the English language, and more a way of making people seem stupider than they actually are.

I like the old George Eliot quote:

"Correct English is the slang of prigs who write history and essays."

Oh, my apologies. I thought this was a thread discussing grammar pet peeves. I'm such a dick. Glad you pointed that out for me.