Grammar that makes you cringe

[T42]

It's unfortunate that Pullman is likely to be dismissed as an academic twat by the yahoos who spawned the thing.

[drossall]

But by that logic, wouldn't 'cricket, rugby and football with all nations' suggest that we're keeping cricket to ourselves?

Absolutely not. It's a list. There's no reason to distinguish between the second and first items. To do that, you'd need:
"Cricket, and rugby and football with all nations."

There's a weird reluctance to use "and" twice in such cases, but that's wrong because, in the case above, you have a list with a sublist:
Cricket, and (rugby and football with all nations).

So each list only has "and" once. The outer list has an Oxford comma in a two-item list, which is unusual but helps parsing when things get complex.

What is true is that my example:
"Cricket, rugby and football with all nations."

leaves open to the reader to work out, from the context, whether we're letting the others play one sport or three (but it can't be two). The only way I can see around that is:
"Cricket, rugby and football, with all nations."

But in any case, this is the opposite of the situation that I was talking about. The general point, as I see it, is that:

• commas are there to help the reader to parse the sentence (or, in this case, the phrase) as quickly and accurately as possible
• rigid rules about use or not of the Oxford comma fail to achieve that
• the 50p coin is a nice example that demonstrates that Oxford commas, used selectively, can help; sadly, it makes the point by failing to use one

[Nuncio]

But by that logic, wouldn't 'cricket, rugby and football with all nations' suggest that we're keeping cricket to ourselves?

Absolutely not. It's a list.

Of course.

What does the panel think of the following, from the Guardian? (I'm not talking about the lack of a 'that' between 'said' and 'confusing', which may have helped.) 

Britons still stranded in the Chinese city at the centre of the deadly coronavirus outbreak have said confusing messages from officials contributed to them missing an evacuation flight home.

It doesn't make me cringe, or really bother me, but it still gives me pause.

The Gaurdian's own style guide:

gerund
Nothing to be frightened of. Think of it as a verb used as a noun: I like running, smoking is bad for your health, etc. You are supposed to use a possessive: I was worried by his smoking, rather than I was worried by him smoking. In practice, many people – yes, even journalists – don’t bother

[Cudzoziemiec]

So is it '...them missing' rather than '...their missing' that gives you pause?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Meanwhile, yesterday I heard a small child (about 3 years old), waiting excitedly for a train, say 'Here comes it! I see it!' No, I'm not cringing at a toddler's grammar, I'm wondering what learning process leads to 'Here comes it' rather than 'Here it comes'. Maybe just analogy with 'I see it', maybe treating it as an object, or something else?

[Kim]

They probably have more experience of "Here comes $whatever", and are still getting the hang of pronouns.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Guess so, word order with pronouns is one of those tricky cases in English.

[Nuncio]

So is it '...them missing' rather than '...their missing' that gives you pause?

Yes.

[rafletcher]

I think this is correct, but it’s so awkward...

“The path she had strode down”

[jsabine]

I think this is correct, but it’s so awkward...

“The path she had strode down”

That's too horrible to use, and given that Oxford, Cambridge and Collins concur that the past participle is stridden, I don't think it's even saved by being correct.

"The path down which she had stridden" has a certain ring to it, albeit a certain pomposity as well.

[drossall]

"The path that she strode down" would be an improvement.

Or, unless it's essential to specify that the striding had been in the distant past or whatever, simplify a bit with:

"The path down which she strode."

[T42]

I don't think I've ever seen stridden anywhere outside a dictionary, but if you need to use the pluperfect that's the animal you want.  I'd try to re-cast the sentence to avoid it.

Some people stridulate when they stride, but that's due to the stuff of their strides and the thickth of their thighs.

[Guy]

This is just plain wrong

Dodik calls for Republika Srpska succession

Bosnian-Serb President Milorad Dodik has called for a referendum on the succession of the RS from BiH. RS succession talks have...

 

(From an internal news round-up)

[T42]

The usage "extort <name of person>" is wrong.

You can coerce or blackmail people to your heart's content, but you can't extort anybody; you have to extort some thing from them, as in that popular UK crime, extorting money with menaces.

[Davef]

English is a wonderful language ... I don't want it to become Leftpondian or txt speak.

CNN headline today: Greece accuses Turkey of weaponizing refugees.

I don’t think it is suggesting they are being armed. I think it is suggesting the refugees are the weapon. It is suggesting that you can cripple a country by sending in tanks or sending in millions of refugees.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ElyDave]

Meanwhile, yesterday I heard a small child (about 3 years old), waiting excitedly for a train, say 'Here comes it! I see it!' No, I'm not cringing at a toddler's grammar, I'm wondering what learning process leads to 'Here comes it' rather than 'Here it comes'. Maybe just analogy with 'I see it', maybe treating it as an object, or something else?

English as a second/alternate language at home possibly?

[T42]

Meanwhile, yesterday I heard a small child (about 3 years old), waiting excitedly for a train, say 'Here comes it! I see it!' No, I'm not cringing at a toddler's grammar, I'm wondering what learning process leads to 'Here comes it' rather than 'Here it comes'. Maybe just analogy with 'I see it', maybe treating it as an object, or something else?

English as a second/alternate language at home possibly?

Sounds like German syntax.

When I was a nipper waiting in the bus queue, my favourite line was "Here it isn't!".

[Cudzoziemiec]

Could be. Mixed language households are not rare round here (!)* but I think toddlers do go through all sorts of grammatical and syntactical trial and error phases.**

*My favourite remains the bloke I met with a broad Welsh accent and a Spanish name.
**My favourite of these is "I've got a jumper on," to which second toddler replied "I've got two jumper ons!" Both in this case fully English families.

[T42]

Or my son as a toddler on being told to behave: "I am being have!"

[toontra]

Had to throw something at the radio the other day! An interviewee prefaced every single answer not only with the ubiquitous "so.." but actually took it to altogether new levels of pomposity and absurdity.

In answering the first question (about something quite banal):

"So...., let's just unpack that...."

The second question:

"So...., let's just unpack that...."

And the third, and fourth.  I couldn't bear to hear any more but assume the drivel continued.

For fuck's sake, just answer the bleedin' question if you so choose, otherwise shut the fuck up.

[Legs]

This one is simply horrible: "UK mulls tightening restrictions further".  I've seen a lot of mulling on the Beeb recently...

[T42]

This one is simply horrible: "UK mulls tightening restrictions further".  I've seen a lot of mulling on the Beeb recently...

Oh, it's nothing to wine about.

[Cudzoziemiec]

This one is simply horrible: "UK mulls tightening restrictions further".  I've seen a lot of mulling on the Beeb recently...

Oh, it's nothing to wine about.

[T42]

Substitute seems to be changing its meaning. It used to mean (and still does) that if X was substituted for Y then X replaced Y. Nowadays it occasionally (often?) means that Y replaced X.  I blame soccer.

Hmmm... Mr. Chambers gives the second meaning as informal or in errors (sic).  I guess that means bloody illiterate.

[citoyen]

Substitute seems to be changing its meaning. It used to mean (and still does) that if X was substituted for Y then X replaced Y. Nowadays it occasionally (often?) means that Y replaced X.  I blame soccer.

I'll be perfectly honest, I can never remember which way round is correct. But to be even more honest, if I thought it mattered, I might make more effort to remember! The intended meaning is usually obvious from the context.

I've even been known not to give a toss when people use "evacuate" incorrectly (ie evacuating a building rather than a person).