Grammar for Gunnies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of the examples listed in the initial post aren't quite errors, which complicates things a great deal, IMHO :) . Your instead of you're is an error; misplaced ' is an indefensible error too. So far so good... But what about me instead of I? It's vernacular and a part of the big picture as such. Poor dear me... I'd like to hear from Art Eatman on the subject very much, though :) .
 
Top_Gunn said:
It's also worth noting that the possessive of words that end in "s" has the apostrophe after the "s." For example, the possessive of "Dickens" is "Dickens','' not "Dicken's" (which would be the possessive of "Dicken").
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not the "s" at the end, but rather the number of the noun that counts. So, " Dickens' " is correct if you are talking about something owned by more than one Dicken.

For nouns ending with "s" but singular, you still add the " 's " at the end, so if you were writing about the 1911 owned by Mr. Dickens, it would be Mr. Dickens's 1911.

Source: The Elements of Style, Strunk and White, 4th edition.

As for on/off topic, I think that for a website with the goal of promoting gun ownership, with an emphasis on activism, it is absolutely important to promote good grammar, usage, etc., since it affects the way we are perceived by others. Perhaps the moderators will disagree with me.
 
For those interested in writing better (and better writing), you might want to invest in a copy of "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White. It's about 90 pages, costs less than $10 (you can often find it for a quarter or so in a used book store), and it doesn't matter which edition you get: the authors have been dead for years. Everything you need to know is in the little book, and it's easy to decipher. Many professional writers memorize "The Elements of Style." The White of Strunk and White, by the way, is E.B. White and is likely someone you read as a child. He wrote "Charlotte's Web." I keep a copy next to my reference books on Walthers.
 
THANK YOU!

My mother was a high school freshman English teacher for 14 years. It bugs the hell out of me to see people write or talk poorly.

It just makes people look ignorant.
 
Reckon I have other things to get all spun-up about (sorry for the incomplete sentence & poor construction), but unless I'm writing a formal paper/document or am endeavoring to provide specific, detailed, critical instruction, I tend to relax in venues such as this . . . and my intent is to enjoy, relax, and talk guns, hunting, & shooting. Over-dependence on "spell check/grammar check" and computer use in general has contributed to the situation of which the Op speaks, however, IMHO.
 
Thank you for posting this topic

The general lack of proof-reading on the interwebs is one of my greatest pet-peeves. I'll admit that I make a mistake or two when posting a quick reply, but I try to make my points coherent and understandable.

The most irritating mistakes I see are the incorrect uses of there, their and they're as well as your and you're. :banghead:
 
"Actually, it's not the "s" at the end, but rather the number of the noun that counts. So, " Dickens' " is correct if you are talking about something owned by more than one Dicken.

"Dickens" isn't plural, it's Charles Dickens' last name, and it's singular. What counts is whether the word you're making possessive ends with an "s," not whether it's singular or plural. As for the extra "s" in possessives of words ending in "s," there is no one set rule. People--like Strunk and White--who claim that there is are mistaken. Strunk and White is a very poor book; Webster's "Dictionary of English Usage" is far more scholarly, accurate, and sensible.
 
Quote: Strunk and White is a very poor book.

With all deference to Mr. Gunn, Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" is a wonderful book for people who desire to write well. Among other things, it would advise the writer to eliminate the use of qualifiers such as very, rather, little, pretty; these are the "leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words." (That's Rule No. 8, by the way.)

Dueling pistols at high noon, sir. :uhoh:
 
Top_Gunn, interesting. I'll concede that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of usage states that there is no set rule. The pages you are referring to appear to be available via Google Book Search.

Personally, I prefer the Strunk and White method, so I typically use that--but I'll be more careful in admonishing others for what is apparently only a stylistic preference.

Thanks.:)
 
The one that always make me cringe is one that I see many, many times a day.

"Alot" is a town in India.

"A lot" is a considerable quantity or extent.
 
Grammer? I could care less

It doesn't bother me much if somebody misplaces a punctuation mark and gets objective and subjective pronouns mixed up. What gets me on the gun sites is the frequent misuse of the word "shot" for "shoot" or the use of "sell" for "sale".

Century Arms used to be famous for the "on sell" emails.
 
PhilA

Good job. This is definitely needed. Everyone should read this. Bad grammar not only makes us look bad, but it makes posts impossible to read or understand.
 
My pet peeve is to, too and two. Unfortunately in my case, reasonably passable grammar doesn't help bad typing. :(
 
I have never really been that concerned with correct grammer on the internet. It is not like this is a real formal form of communication. There are a host of diff. abrev., boat loads of slang, initialisms such as LOL, and for the love of all that is holy :D smilies! So come on loosen up and have a little fun.

BTW during my time here on the web I have had more than a few missed key strokes and such, and the few times that someone has seen fit to blast me for my spelling etc, rather than my comments I have usually taken 5 min. to search their own postings and put forth a nice little listing of their own mistakes. It usually shows them to be the blow hard in the discussion.:D
 
"Quote: Strunk and White is a very poor book.

With all deference to Mr. Gunn, Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" is a wonderful book for people who desire to write well. Among other things, it would advise the writer to eliminate the use of qualifiers such as very, rather, little, pretty; these are the "leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words." (That's Rule No. 8, by the way.)"

A perfect example of why Strunk and White is a very poor book (not just a poor book, a very poor book). Only pompous fools would publish something telling people that common English words shouldn't be used.

Webster's has a lot of fun with quotations from the writings of E.B. White in which he violates his own "rules." (See, for instance, their discussion of the supposed distinction between "which" and "that," a distinction which few writers (including White) have ever observed, but which S & W ignorantly insist upon. There are many better usage guides.
 
The Elements of Style has the advantage of being concise enough for this age, so that a hurried author might read it; what other manual has that advantage? Even if some of its rules are silly, a writer taking all of them to heart will still improve--something one cannot say for a manual not read at all.
 
It never hurts to compose your post in your word processor, which likely affords grammar checking in addition to spelling.

My current pet annoying grammar moment is exemplified by people who would never say "There is twenty-four bottles in a case," but are quite content to say "There's twenty-four..." This is now turning up in written form.

Those who would argue the relative merits of various style manuals should remember that style ain't the same as grammar. Style is a matter of personal or corporate character and choice. It would be a dreary world for the reader if style did not vary.
 
With a bow to Mr. Gunn, again, we should all get so worked up about the right to keep and bear arms, or the Heller decision that's pending before the Supremes, or the restrictive gun laws in Chicago, or the silliness that infests California. Rather than a "My-Colt-is-better-than-your-Remington" challenge, which is what this conversation has sunk to as we batter Mr. White just to praise Mr. Webster, we should all agree that better writing can help the cause and leave it at that. If you find inspiration in one work, bravo. But there's no need to denegrate that which inspires others.
 
It pleases me to see (oooo, passive voice)...

I am pleased to see so many others who are irked by poor communication skills.

Please, those of you who do not have excellent grammar, punctuation and style, do not think this is an attempt to prevent you from speaking (posting.)

It is, however, an admonition to better writing. Please, at the very least, take the time to seperate ideas into clear, concise thoughts (usually in the form of a sentence.)

You need not even write as you would for an essay: you may note I am not writing in complete paragraphs as this medium does not encourage such usage.

Splitting your thoughts, however, greater improves your ability to communicate.

As an added bonus, it also keeps me from spending five minutes deciphering your post.

As for they, their, they're; your, you're; too, to, two; roll, role; and many other homonyms, please endeavor to use the correct word. You may get your point across, but it's the difference between putting a shot on the target and placing a shot in the bullseye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Gun Grammar Gendarmes Go GangBusters ! (AKA - Grammar Police)
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
redneck2
  • Locked
Correcting grammar, spelling in posts
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
BEARMAN
B
P
  • Locked
It's all about Comma's
Replies
17
Views
721
frenchbushmaster
F
C
  • Locked
Please read- forum grammar pet peeves
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
pax
P
T
  • Locked
PSA: Writing pro-gun letters, school reports, etc.
Replies
2
Views
341
Billy_H
B
Back
Top