Grammar that makes you cringe

[Guy]

I hesitate to call you a Canute, but I think that battle is lost.

Not until the last fighter falls or submits, it isn't.

I will continue to wake the entire pub up by shouting at the telly every time I hear it. You never know, it might educate some of the morons who walk in and ask the landord "Can I get..." (but that's a whole other grammatical rant)

[red marley]

I hesitate to call you a Canute, but [...]

As we're all sitting comfortably in pedants' corner, may I suggest that Canute's fable wasn't about an act of hubris, but rather a demonstration to his courtiers of his humility in his powerlessness to stop the tide?

[Guy]

I hesitate to call you a Canute, but [...]

As we're all sitting comfortably in pedants' corner, may I suggest that Canute's fable wasn't about an act of hubris, but rather a demonstration to his courtiers of his humility in his powerlessness to stop the tide?

Indeed. Whereas I am convinced of the rightness of my cause, and I will prevail*





*Yeah, right.

[offcumden]

On the side of a window-installer's van:
"Every panes a pleasure"

Well-respected local firm; well-respected for their windows, that is.

[Pickled Onion]

Myself, yourself, etc as false formalities really grate on me, although this is really just a matter of style. Their misuse doesn't actually lose any meaning, unlike regular/frequent.

ARTHUR: Yeah, will do. Er, but first, can myself draw yourself’s kindly attention to the sign that the captain has kindly en-illuminated in regard to the fastenation of your seatbelt during the current highly-unlikely event of turbulence?
MR. BIRLING: What?
ARTHUR: Could you do your seatbelt up?

[Tim Hall]

Myself, yourself, etc as false formalities really grate on me, although this is really just a matter of style. Their misuse doesn't actually lose any meaning, unlike regular/frequent.

ARTHUR: Yeah, will do. Er, but first, can myself draw yourself’s kindly attention to the sign that the captain has kindly en-illuminated in regard to the fastenation of your seatbelt during the current highly-unlikely event of turbulence?
MR. BIRLING: What?
ARTHUR: Could you do your seatbelt up?

I thought of that too.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Blanchett, who also a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, has long been an advocate for sexism in Hollywood

Appearing on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Blanchett was asked where her so-called “moral compass” lied.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/cate-blancett-moral-compass-vagina-the-present-a7618501.html
I don't know much about Cate Blanchett, perhaps she actually is an advocate for sexism? The idea of a moral compass that lies is worth exploring too.

[Tim Hall]

The idea of a moral compass that lies is worth exploring too.

I think we should get Philip Pullman on the case. I'm imagining a sort of alethiometer with attitude.

[T42]

Usage grumble re 'liberal':

US: left-wing
UK: centrist with a tinge of leftiness
France: right-wing laissez-faire capitalist

But this morning, Graun describes Rutte's bunch as centre-right liberal, while France Info calls them right-wing liberal.

What's a chap to think?

[PhilO]

That they mean 'right wing libertarian'?   

To my mind, 'liberal' can never go in the same sentence as 'right wing'. Apart from in that sentence, obviously! 

Not that it's grammar.

[Paul]

"... sprung a shock" (from the Law Society Gazette).

Shouldn't it be "sprang"? I'm girding my loins in case I'm wrong (The Gazette has form for using "sprung" in the past tense).

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps it's legalese?

[clarion]

That they mean 'right wing libertarian'?   

To my mind, 'liberal' can never go in the same sentence as 'right wing'. Apart from in that sentence, obviously! 

Not that it's grammar.

unless it's neo-liberal, of course

[spesh]

I'll just leave this here - the tale of a dispute about overtime pay that revolves around the usage of the humble comma...

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/15/health/oxford-comma-maine-court-case-trnd/index.html

[drossall]

Eh? I'm not sure I follow the argument, even in US English. It's a list. You need a conjunction before the last item in a list. Since there's no conjunction before the penultimate verbal noun, but there is one before the ultimate one, those two are separate ideas in the list, with or without an Oxford comma.

[Jakob W]

'or' is a conjunction though, isn't it? I had to read the story twice before I understood the ambiguity, but I'd have sided with the judge...

[drossall]

Yes, but it's the place that "or" has in the list that is telling. A list is built up of A B C D conjunction E (I've left out all commas to avoid for the moment the Oxford issue).

If it's a complex list, you get conjunctions inside some or all of the possibilities too. In other words, any of A-E might be replaced by either "G or H" or maybe "I and J". For example, when some of the guests invited to a party were couples:

John, Mark and Sally, Liz, Jane and Peter,...

However, that doesn't alter the need for a conjunction between the last two list items. So, if the final guests were Dan and Mary:

John, Mark and Sally, Liz, Jane and Peter, and Dan and Mary.

In the article in question, the only conjunction occurs before distribution. Therefore:

• Distribution is the last item in the list
• Distribution is distinct from shipment

To avoid this conclusion, you'd need another conjunction preceding shipment. The Oxford comma debate is secondary and, in this instance, a distraction in my view.

[T42]

It boils down to the difference between:

A. packing for [shipment or distribution]

B. [packing for shipment], or distribution

A. implies that packing is the only activity covered, B. defines packing and distribution as two activities.

[drossall]

But then (A) you need a conjunction before packing.

[T42]

Repeated 'cos I'm fed up going back a page to look:

"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of [stuff]"

But then (A) you need a conjunction before packing.

Yes you do; but if you put one in you'd need to precede it by an Oxford comma to avoid shifting the ambiguity back a notch (or creating a second ambiguity).

[drossall]

Agreed. However, your possibility A is precluded by the absence of the preceding conjunction.

I sense that this is getting boring

[jsabine]

Doesn't the resolution essentially boil down to the judge deciding it was boring, declaring it ambiguous (in other words, he couldn't be arsed deciding between two sets of grammar pedants), and following the principle that ambiguity should be interpreted in favour of the weaker party to the contract, in this case the employees?

[ElyDave]

Doesn't the resolution essentially boil down to the judge deciding it was boring, declaring it ambiguous (in other words, he couldn't be arsed deciding between two sets of grammar pedants), and following the principle that ambiguity should be interpreted in favour of the weaker party to the contract, in this case the employees?

That was the essence of the judgement as I read it, it could be argued either way, so benefit of the doubt went to the drivers

[clarion]

Gerunds, people!

For the drivers to be covered by this clause, it would have to be distributing, in line with the other activities in the list, Oxford comma or no.

[mattc]

Gerunds, people!

For the drivers to be covered by this clause, it would have to be distributing, in line with the other activities in the list, Oxford comma or no.

You're on fire today Clarrers.