Grammar that makes you cringe

[SandyV]

There appears to have been burglarization of meaning here.

[mattc]

This thread has complained about quite a lot of verbs derived from nouns where there already exists a verb with the same meaning. "Leverage" and "burglarize" are two examples that spring instantly to mind. My addition to this category is "to acquisition".

I took out of my inside tunic pocket a small pad and a pencil stub that I'd recently acquisitioned from a desk drawer of my company Orderly Room at Fort Benning.

In think this verb is a good invention. Although it's meaning may be the same as "acquired" the ending lends a shade of "recquisitioned", particularly given the military context.
In any case, I'm not going to argue with J.D. Salinger.

That's a nice example of inventing a word for the sake of colour/humour.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves ...

It's completely different to then treat
"acquisitioned"
... as a useful new word. Daft, in fact. The military are well known for inventing stupid words and jargon - doesn't mean the rest of us should use it!

[JJ]

It's in relation to the use of the term in town planning reports eg. the proposal is to erect premises for use as three "food premises" (defined term).  When talking about one of them it does not become a "premise" but remains premises.

Is that legitimate? I think I'd want to talk about three sets of premises. It's not "a premises" when you have one.

Curiously, I'd be somewhat comfortable talking about "a premises", but "this premises" wouldn't sit right at all.

<Checks carefully for disleksia before capn Smudge gets here!>

[Bledlow]

Definitize (verb).

AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!

[Cudzoziemiec]

This thread has complained about quite a lot of verbs derived from nouns where there already exists a verb with the same meaning. "Leverage" and "burglarize" are two examples that spring instantly to mind. My addition to this category is "to acquisition".

I took out of my inside tunic pocket a small pad and a pencil stub that I'd recently acquisitioned from a desk drawer of my company Orderly Room at Fort Benning.

In think this verb is a good invention. Although it's meaning may be the same as "acquired" the ending lends a shade of "recquisitioned", particularly given the military context.
In any case, I'm not going to argue with J.D. Salinger.

That's a nice example of inventing a word for the sake of colour/humour.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves ...

It's completely different to then treat
"acquisitioned"
... as a useful new word. Daft, in fact. The military are well known for inventing stupid words and jargon - doesn't mean the rest of us should use it!

I don't think the military invented it - I got the impression Salinger himself invented it. But I haven't checked that.

[Pingu]

Additional xxxx laptops are available for use in the meeting rooms, yyy and zzzz will require to use their own laptops in these rooms for presentations...

Will require what? 

[Mr Larrington]

I care not a fig for how well qualibobbed you are, Mr Lord Sir Professor Doctor Expert.

There is still no such word as "intregal".

That is all.

[iakobski]

The lower figure will likely increase the impetus of the coalition government to cut public spending, as lower growth means fewer tax revenues.

 

[hellymedic]

The lower figure will likely increase the impetus of the coalition government to cut public spending, as lower growth means fewer tax revenues.

 

BBC News comes out with grammatical howlers and factual errors every day.

I can sometimes not be bothered to share them or point them out.

Today's:

"Stabbed MP reviews security
An MP who was stabbed while holding a public surgery in eat London speaks about the incident for the first time."

Maybe there are cannibals in Newham...

[L CC]

Let's circularise that to the members

[Regulator]

The lower figure will likely increase the impetus of the coalition government to cut public spending, as lower growth means fewer tax revenues.

 

And what is wrong with that? 

[John Henry]

The lower figure will likely increase the impetus of the coalition government to cut public spending, as lower growth means fewer tax revenues.

And what is wrong with that? 

'Fewer tax revenues' sounds odd. It would only make sense if they were reducing the number of separate tax revenue streams (fat chance!). I'd have written 'less tax revenue'. There's no need to pluralise 'revenue'.

There's also an argument to be had over whether 'likely' is an adjective or an adverb. I think it's an adjective, and I don't like seeing it used as a synonym for 'probably'. But I think I'm fighting a losing battle on that one.

[Regulator]

The lower figure will likely increase the impetus of the coalition government to cut public spending, as lower growth means fewer tax revenues.

And what is wrong with that? 

'Fewer tax revenues' sounds odd. It would only make sense if they were reducing the number of separate tax revenue streams (fat chance!). I'd have written 'less tax revenue'. There's no need to pluralise 'revenue'.

There's also an argument to be had over whether 'likely' is an adjective or an adverb. I think it's an adjective, and I don't like seeing it used as a synonym for 'probably'. But I think I'm fighting a losing battle on that one.

I though about the 'revenue' v 'revenues' bit - but  if it is accepted that there can be more than one revenue (and this would appear to be the case from the mandarin-speak used in Whitehall and the Treasury) it is correct as written.  Although I'd agree with you it might be clearer to talk about 'revenue streams'.

[JJ]

Likely as an adverb is a ghastly americanism.  "I'll likely get donuts at the drive-thru".  Yuk!

"Publically" seems to be accepted by Websters too, but it's absolutely horrid.  To do something in a public manner would be to do it publicly.  To do it publically would be to do it in a publical way, surely?

I may be wrong but even if I am, I'm still not going to like it.

[citoyen]

if it is accepted that there can be more than one revenue ... it is correct as written.

Maybe, if that were what they meant. But they seem to mean less cash, not fewer sources of cash.

d.

[iakobski]

I posted it because when people get it wrong it's nearly always because they use less where they should have used fewer.

Revenues is ok at a pinch, if a bit affected, a bit like "moneys", but in the phrase "lower growth means fewer tax revenues" they are not saying lower growth implies fewer taxes they are saying it implies less tax.

[citoyen]

I posted it because when people get it wrong it's nearly always because they use less where they should have used fewer.

Funny, isn't it. It's been so fashionable for so long for pedants to complain about supermarkets using the "X items or less" formulation that it seems to have become a popular fixed idea that "less" must always be wrong.

People have the same trouble with "I" or "me", incorrectly using "I" when they should use "me". This seems to arise from them being corrected as a child when using "me" wrongly and therefore thinking that "I" is always correct - probably because they weren't told (or just didn't understand) why "me" was wrong on those occasions.

But yeah, whatever, I can live with it. Some people don't know the difference between a subject and an object. So what. The only time it really grates is when they do it in set phrases, such as "Between you and I". I have a colleague who says this all the time, and in his job (subediting), he really ought to have a better grasp of basic grammar. Ooh, it makes my skin crawl.  

d.

[Wowbagger]

My kids quite often use "me" as the subject of the verb, and they were all grammar-school educated and have good degrees. I don't think they did so quite so much when they were at school: it must be the influence of all these kids from bog-standard comprehensives ending up at university.

[citoyen]

"Me" as subject doesn't bother me so much - in fact, I should admit that I sometimes use it myself.

I don't know why "I" as object seems so much more offensive. Perhaps because it sounds a little affected, as if the person is trying too hard to be "correct" and still getting it wrong.

d.   

[citoyen]

Oh, and another thing...

Dangling participles. Gah!

Writers, by all means try to liven up your dreary prose by varying sentence structure, but please at least make an effort to preserve your intended meaning. If you can't see why your sentence is now at best ambiguous, at worst nonsensical, I suggest that in future you stick to   Janet and John-style sentence structure. Morons.

d. 

[rower40]

"Me" as subject doesn't bother me so much - in fact, I should admit that I sometimes use it myself.

I don't know why "I" as object seems so much more offensive. Perhaps because it sounds a little affected, as if the person is trying too hard to be "correct" and still getting it wrong.

d.   

+1.
["Viz"-stylee syntax checking on]
I like grammar, me.
["Viz"-stylee syntax checking off]
Can someone parse the above sentence (particularly the last word) for me please?

[citoyen]

In that sentence, "me" is reflexive and used purely for emphasis. The meaning of the sentence is unchanged if you remove it.

cf "I myself like grammar."

d.

[Mr Larrington]

Larry "Laurence" Fishburne!

Did you really say "neumonic" on CSI last night?

You did?

Get in the cannon.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Fewer, I and whom. I saw a banner which used "whom" as the subject of a sentence.

[Keith]

You and I went cycling
They came cycling with you and me.

I don't know about subject and objects. Just try taking out the "you and". If it still sounds right it probably is.