Ask Lemmy

End a sentence with a preposition if you want to. And start one with a conjunction.

Putting question marks or exclamation points after "quotation marks"! I've never understood the point of putting the punctuation inside the quotation unless it's part of the quotation itself.

I really like to write 'gonna.'

If I am clearly referring to myself (as in a text), I shouldn't have to inlude myself in the sentence. Ex: "just grabbing food" vs "I'm just grabbing food".

Ending a sentence with a preposition has been standard in English for longer than the language has existed, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

The right to gleefully split infinitives.

It is perfectly cromulent to use "less" in place of "fewer".

I think outside of highly formalized writing (usually found exclusively in academia) grammar only matters to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the voice of the author.

It matters because it makes things easier to read. A wall of text with no punctuation or capitalization is difficult to parse, both for the reader and for the writer if they need to go back and make changes.

On the other hand, punctuation can be used incorrectly to convey things that might be part of how the author speaks. Examples being: using ellipsis to indicate trailing off at the end of a sentence, perhaps because you're still trying to find words to finish the thought, or using parentheses to indicate a slight tangent or clarifying statement, or failing to use a period at the end of a text message to indicate a softer tone and an openness to a response.

Capitalization and misspellings can be used similarly. Such as intentionally misspelling a word to indicate that it should be pronounced differently than usual, or capitalizing all or part of a word to add emphasis.

TLDR: Proper grammar matters for clearly conveying information, but intentionally breaking grammatical rules is a good way to add your voice, personality, and tone into your writing. And that is more important than being technically correct.

I feel like a lot of the grammar sticklers out there only speak one language, and their lack of sympathy towards people speaking English as a second or third language is low.

If you can convey your point– good enough for me!

To anyone who has a problem with singular they:

Roses are red, violets aren't blue
Singular they is older than singular you

Nothing, and the whole "grammar nazis" thing is rotten. There is never a reason to have any other reaction to being corrected about objective things than learning from the mistake. If someone shows you the spelling or grammar mistakes you made, read it and memorise the corrections. You're not losing anything by getting better at communication, you only gain. It doesn't take you five minutes longer to spell the words correctly and you don't make yourself look like an idiot, child with learning disabilities or someone who seriously doesn't care about the most basic and expected shit we do for others. Language is an astounding tool and people who spot on it by not caring about spelling and grammar should be forced to take classes and taught to see how important it is.

I don't know if shouldn't've is grammatically correct but I hear it a lot so it seems like fair play. Same for other contractions that I never see in text, possibly because they're wrong. Because've. He'd've.

Also like I'ma which can't possibly be ok, but "I am going to" is for suckers.

I'm really fond of using "I'mma" and "gonna".

I obviously wouldn't use these words in a professional document, but everywhere else I'mma use "gonna" and "I'mma" whenever I feel like it.

Conversational/informal English, there are no rules and anything goes, speak/type however the fuck ya want. if you wouldn't wear a tuxedo to the gas station you don't need 100% proper punctuation and sentence structure for internet shitposting

written formal English, yeah I personally will judge you if you use the wrong "there/their/they're," but maybe future generations will collectively decide on one universal spelling cuz it's just fuckin easier, and that's fine! languages evolve no matter how much grumpy old women like me enjoy bitching/memeing about it lol

"And" isn't necessary when listing.

Example: "cats, dogs and mice"

Vs "cats, dogs, mice"

Haven't heard an argument beyond "it's just convention" and I'm lazy enough to not bother with three letters and one syllable.

I think it also can be a little clearer in some situations where the word "and" is included in the list.

Example: "I like jazz, rock and roll and classical"

Vs: "I like jazz, rock and roll, classical"

A slight tangent into spelling, but I think "milktoast" is perfectly evocative of the idea the user is trying to get across.

who/whom.

Maybe it's because that English is not my first language but I always find it confusing.

I like to put apostrophes where they do'nt belong.

I don’t care if people say “chomping at the bit”, because it basically means the same thing as “champing at the bit”, and nobody uses the word champing anymore anyway.

Mooses and gooses

I work in a job with contractual language and care deeply about the placement of every comma in that context.

Outside that in everyday life, I don't care about any grammer rule so long as I can understand the writer's intent.

Even if someone says "irregardless" or "I could care less", I don't say anything because I still understand what they mean.

I used to get yelled at mid-sentence by a parent for incorrect grammar, and used to do the same to others as a result. I've mostly recovered. I still find imprecision irksome but, if everyone understands, I don't think it's a big deal.

I still think certain formal situations warrant proper grammar and spelling (from native speakers at least), such as a CV for a professional job.

Irregardless, for all intensive purposes your point is mute.

i'm not prescriptive with grammar. it is descriptive. so "common usage" is fine by me.

and there are even racist undertones to a lot of it. sometimes the word "ask" gets pronounced as "axe" which some people throw fits of hissy all over the place.

Chaucer, the grandfather of modern English, had no problem using the "axe" version. so i'm more down with common usage for speech but knowing the variety of rules and how they have been used historically is a fun exercise in linguistic study and discourse.

but its all good.

Have to / need to - At some point in my 20s it was pointed out to me that "need to" is the correct phrase and that "have to" isn't correct. But actually "have to" is used in both English and Spanish "tengo que" which is "have to" or technically "have that". Grammatically, if "have" is a state of being then "have to" is like a state of being with a direction or target implied.