I'm a stickler for spelling and grammar.

As such, I find incorrect word usage annoying.

Like "I could care less". Well, if you could care less, then you care!

Or, "Irregardless..." The word is "regardless".

But my latest pet peeve is the pluralization of the word "e-mail". In my opinion, "e-mails" is not a word.

I don't go to the mailbox to check for "mails", and I don't read the "mails" that people send me, so why should I go to my e-mail program and check for "e-mails" and read the "e-mails" that people send me?

I guess the true problem is that e-mail is a delivery method for "e-letters".

Now, I don't expect everyone in the world to change the words they use and start calling e-mail "e-letters". But, I think people should realize that the word "e-mail" is in fact both singular and plural.

It drives me crazy when I hear Bill O'reilly say, "Send your e-mails to...." or when I hear someone on the street say, "Did you get my e-mails?".

So, am I totally off-base here? Does this drive anyone else crazy?

Mike

I can't say that I've head anyone use e-mails. I'm glad though, that you brought up the subject of word usage.

The incorrect spelling that bothers me is alot, which should be a lot....two words.

"A lot" drives me crazy, too.

Madtown, when you listen to the news, pay attention to the way they say "e-mails". They do it all the time.

And if you agree with my logic, it'll drive you crazy too, and then I'll know that I'm not the only one who finds this annoying.

Of course, now that I live in the south, I hear new words every day.

Mike

Mike, I'll listen for e-mails. I hope we don't get too fussy thought, because
I know I make mistakes. I just noticed that in one post I typed your
when it should have been you're.

I miss reading John's posts becasue, even though he was sometimes outrageous, his
grammar and word usage was impeccable.

I was talking to a Georgia native last winter and I thought she was saying whale, which didn't
make any sense in our conversation. To make a long story short, the word she was
saying was well, as in a well containing water. She pronounced it in two syllable wh ale.

MT

While I could go on ad naseum when it comes to my grievances with some usages of English, I'll limit it to the top few.

I hate it when people leave prepositions hanging at the end of a sentence (ex. - are you coming with?).

I also hate the misusage of verb tense, which happens VERY often here in the south (ex - he don't want to go).

I hate it when people use overly severe words to describe something (ex - I hate it when people overdramatize their annoyances about the language )

As for Mike's original post, I'm a little less militant about the usage of email/s (this really drives him nuts, though ). There is complete validity in the logic of his argument. I think we need to remember that syntax changes with technology, however.

This is a case where traditional rules are not being followed. Maybe we need to start a letter writing campaign to all the big media outlets to start using the term properly, so it can catch on...

I'm just complaining. I'm not going to force anyone to spell correctly or punctuate according to some set of rules.

No need to worry. It just drives me nuts when people on tv use "e-mails". That's all.

Mike

One of my pet peeves in this area is the use of the. The is supposed to be pronounced as thee when used before a vowel. It is the (thee) apple, and the nut. Even on tv it is mostly wrong. Like you with the e-mails it drives me nuts. Is it even taught any longer?

Many don't pay attention to the rule governing a and an. It is correct to use an before words
that begin with a vowel and a in words beginning with a consonants.

Another peeve of mine is the word (?) snuck. I was taught that the past tense of sneak is
sneaked and that it is never appropriate to use snuck.

Snuck was not even listed in some dictionaries or it was mentioned as an Americnism/slang
Now, it seems that, through usage, snuck has become an acceptable word.

MOUSE - I never knew there were to be two different pronounciations of the word "the." So, the answer is no - it is not being taught. Or at least it wasn't when I was in school.

As for Madtown's "snuck" peeve, I can relate. I work in a law firm and there is always the debate whether we are to use the word "plead" (pronounced "pled") or "pleaded" as the past tense of "plead" (pronounced "pleed").

Isn't English fun?

My pet peeve....when people mix up your and you're! Drives me crazy!!!

GUILTY!! I know better, but when typing away, I just forget.

MT

Ah, I know where Mike is coming from. My mother has a liking to using double negatives "That doesn't prove nothing" ...OK so how much did it prove to you? Though I am no English major myself. I do make mistakes but I do my best not to.

P.S. I am not going to send you guys no e-mails

ALRIGHT IS ALL WRONG.

According to Brayson's Dictionary of Troublesom Words and The Gregg Reference Manual
all right should be spelled as two words.

Not taking their word for it, I checked my dictionary and found alright listed
as a disputed usage.

Something I learned while investigating --- alone was originally all one.

Bad grammar used to bother me a lot more than it does now, because I've realized that it isn't necessarily symbolic of a lack of intelligence. The same goes for spelling. Actually, Ernest Hemingway was terrible at spelling, and as a strange sort of tribute, the title of A Moveable Feast was intentionally mispelled when the book was printed. We all have our little pet peeves, though, and mine is the misuse of the words good and well. Ex. I feel good. That really gets on my nerves, but I keep it to myself, because I know that my grammar isn't perfect.

My pet peeve is the use of acronyms used in place of common phrases.
AKA....'As Known As' being one, when in fact it is a type of 'woody' vine.

And, dare I say.........Labor insted of labour, Color instead of colour.
Dove instead of dived.
Swimmed instead of swam.


Regards..Alan

But Alan,

American is spoken here
I do believe you made that clear
Sometimes U can be a useless letter
So we changed the spelling to make words better

I think acronyms are rather fun
I've never heard swimmed said by anyone
The past tense of dive is dove
Or dived..., either one of those

MT I dare say

Madtown.


Dove is a bird of peace.

Words are words and do what you will.
Words are that and will ever be.
Words dont kill and never will instill.
The need to destroy because we are we.

Not very good...but trying.


Regards..Alan

Alan,

Dove, which rhymes with glove
means pidgeons or peace and love

Dove, which rhymes with rose
means into the water he goes

Once again, I sing my song
I am right and you are wrong

I have another grammar peeve and it goes to the heart of this forum. It's the difference between quote and quotation. Quote is a verb; Quotation is a noun.

Is anyone here as annoyed with the fact that this forum errs when it posts our quotations of other members as "QUOTE"? It's wrong and it bothers me more than it should.

I'll have to bug Mike and get him to change that

Madtown.

Make sense of this.

Dove dove in the pool.

???????????.


Regards.....Alan

Alan.

The dove dove in the pool.

Well, that makes sense to me.

England and America are two countries separated by the same language.

George Bernard Shaw

MT

MT.


Dead right!!!

Fun though isn't it.


Regards .....Alan

Jaime.

I bet you pronounce the as thee without even realizing it, just because it sounds
right.

For instance:

Take the cake from THEE oven and place it on THE table.

MT

Nah, MT, I grew up south of Chicago, all my "the"'s come out sounding like "da"

The word that bothers me the most is the word asked. I hate when people say well I axed him/her. What? You just hit someone with an axe?

With reference to the issue of the pluralization of "e-mail" (i.e. "e-mails"), I have given the matter some thought. While I understand your point of view (Mike), there may be another way to look at this.

An e-mail is a unique form of written communication - as is a memo, a fax or a letter. If we can have memos, faxes and letters, then it follows that more-than-one e-mail must constitute "e-mails."

Quite right that we don't read "mails," but letter(S) come in the mail, as do advert(S), catalog(S) and bill(S).

If I were sitting on the Board of Grammatical Usage, I guess I'd have to go along with "e-mails."

My pet gripe is the misplacement of the word ONLY. You hear it on television and even see it in newspapers (Are the editors sleeping?). "He ONLY found out about the deal after he got home." Nah! How about: "He found out about the deal ONLY after he got home."

Speaks you English?

Bob Miller

After reading Mouse's comment and the responses I asked several of my teacher friends about the use of THE. The rule is still taught, but less and less because our teachers have not all been taught. Indeed, if you listen to the press you will hear the correct usage in many of them. Unfortunately, not nearly enough. It is sad I believe as it sounds so much better when used correctly. The improper usage seemed to start in the South according to my firends. To me it is like scraping nails on a blackboard.

This is a confusing issue to me. The definitions in my dictionary state QUOTATION:
1.THE ACT OF QUOTING.
2.a PASSAGE THAT IS QUOTED.
3.N/A
QUOTE:
1. TO REPEAT OR COPY THE WORDS OF (ANOTHER), USUALLY WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
2. TO CITE OR REFER TO FOR ILLUSTRATION OR PROOF.
3.n/A

To repeat or copy seems to be what we are doing.

Mike. More on the e-mail/e-mails

Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2001 ]

Internet can cause
linguistical waves

By Jeremy R. Cooke
Collegian Staff Writer

To e-mail or not to e-mail, that isn't the question.

Sending messages among computers in chunks of words we
used to call "letters" is a practice that has proven its
usefulness and versatility, despite the occasional nuisance of
viruses.

But what's in a name?

If Shakespeare had lived to suffer the slings and arrows of
Internet worms, would Hamlet have uttered, "Come, I will
give you way for these your e-mails"?

Or would he have spurned the "s" and spoken instead of
"this your bundle of e-mail"?

Linguists, computer specialists, newspaper stylists and many
English speakers disagree about the proper plural form of
"e-mail" and generally how to use the word.

Just as the Internet lacks any universal regulatory body, so
too the words and phrases that evolve into the parlance of
the online world often withstand attempts at standardization.

Most newspaper style guides, however, make that attempt.

The New York Times' style guide recommends using the
construction "an e-mail message" instead of "an e-mail," said
Lisa Guernsey, a reporter for the newspaper's technology
section.

The Associated Press suggests that "e-mail" can refer to
either electronic mail or a single message.

College newspapers like The Daily Collegian and The
Daily Pennsylvanian in Philadelphia allow for broader
uses.

Reporters at The Collegian can use "e-mail" as a verb or
as a noun. While the style guide makes no mention of the
plural form -- "e-mails" -- it does appear in articles
sometimes.

Andrew Armstrong, a student at the University of
Pennsylvania who copy edits for The Daily
Pennsylvanian, says his paper embraces either form.

"We do use the form 'e-mail' and 'e-mails,' " he said. "The
term has become so rooted into the country's language, and
especially the language of a college campus, that I think our
style there, while slightly less formal, is perfectly fine."

Armstrong has noticed that technology words change
rapidly.

"When something's new, a lot of times it's in quotation
marks, and then it eventually moves on to drop them once
it's no longer a buzzword and it enters the vernacular," he
said.

Gerry Santoro also keeps an ear on the way new computer
words develop. He serves as an assistant professor of
information sciences and technology at Penn State with a
joint appointment in speech communication.

"There's an interesting phenomenon that a lot of the
technical terms, which in many cases start out as nouns,
creep their way into the popular vernacular and end up
becoming verbs," Santoro said.

He cites the example of file transfer protocol (FTP), a
common way for many Penn State students to upload Web
pages.

"It's specifically a noun, but I hear students saying, 'I'm
"FTPing" this' or 'I "FTPed" this last week.' They're turning
it into a verb," Santoro said.

Santoro said he's bothered by the looser usage of "e-mail"
and "e-mails," but he knows there's not too much he can do.
"I have to recognize that language is a very fluid thing. At
some point you're standing in the ocean trying to hold back
the tide," he said.

Santoro suggests these habits are the sign of a greater
problem he notices among students – "not knowing how to
separate the language they use back home from the
language they use in a professional situation."

Santoro said students should learn to understand when it's
more appropriate to write things formally and when they can
be informal.

If Santoro were writing a formal paper, he said he would
use "electronic mail" or "E-mail" with the first letter
capitalized. He would not, however, use "email" without the
hyphen as some students do.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, electronic mail
has been colloquially shortened as "email" or "e-mail" since
at least 1982, when few computer users even knew what it
was.

Language buffs who peruse the dictionary might also
recognize another, more antiquated word — "email" —
pronounced "EH-mail" and referring to a kind of ink used
on glass or porcelain.

Barbara Bullock, associate professor of linguistics, does not
agree with Santoro's use of the word in spelling or
hyphenation.

"I use "emails" freely and without any guilt," Bullock said.

Does Bullock think English writers and speakers should try
to reverse the tide?

She answers "no" for two reasons.

"One: I'm not sure that you can and, two: I'm also not sure
that we should want to reverse it because it's really quite
interesting," she said. "It follows perfectly from the way we
use our language."

"Mail" is a mass noun, which cannot be pluralized. Mass
nouns need some kind of "counter" to be tallied, such as
"grains of sand, drops of water, or pieces of mail," Bullock
explained.

"But "email" is used differently from "mail" even if it looks
like it should be identical, Bullock said. "In English, if you
can count it, then you can pluralize it. 'Email' has become a
countable noun that can refer to email messages as well as
to email as a mass. Given that, you simply can't stem the
tide, and I personally wouldn't want to!"

When speaking of the overwhelming trends in new word
usage, ocean metaphors seem to abound. As far as Bullock
and some of her other colleagues in the linguistics program
are concerned, "e-mails" — with or without the hyphen —
are here to stay.

emails, snuck, good, they are all irritating, and like aka, lol is right up there.

The spelling thing is a little disturbing because kids actually think that "you" is spelled "u". "2" "two" - and then they write "l8tr" on essays.

Essays.

!

jjirout

This is true. Language doesn't follow rules. The rules follow its development; it may be uncomfortable to imagine but "u" could be an acceptable written substitute for "you" one day just as "you" replaced "thou". Subculture, they say, can have more influence than the majority in this respect.

Today however, it is very difficult to connect with the power culture in our society if you cannot access formal language. Despite President Bush's background, his lack of verbal skills has significantly tarnished his image.

Formal language is still valued - but it is certainly open to change and in ways that could very well have originated from subculture or slang.

jjirout

I don't think President Bush's lack of verbal skills has diminished him in any way. This is just something Democrats use to try to dininish him. He graduated with a higher grade point than Gore did.
The problem is everyone became accustomed to Clinton's glibness.
Bush gets his message across, and frankly the common man appreciates it.

Let's not blind ourselves - or deafen ourselves - with political bias - eh?

Clinton's a liar. It's a fact. Bush does not speak well. It is as clear as day, or I should say, as cloudy as ever - please - he is lacking in the verbal finese department.

Conservatives criticize liberals for elevated the mediocre, but I guess if the mediocre is a conservative, then it is a whole other story...

jjirout

Bush's speeches are much better now that his writers don't give him any hard words. And....he even has a book named after him...Bushisms!

M.T.

I can't say it's really a pet peeve, but I do notice that "me" is used instead of "I" a great deal of the time.

For instance....you are older than me, should be, you are older than I.

M.T.

From Words, Woe and Wonder, CBC

Although our alphabet hasn’t changed much in more than a millennium, the way we talk and spell has. One of the biggest shakeups occurred after the Norman Conquest in 1066, when French scribes decided to alter the way some sounds were represented on parchment. They replaced cw with qu, for instance, so we wound up with queen instead of “cwene” and quick in place of “cwic.” Of course, the French also gave us many new words, so we probably shouldn’t quarrel.

English has a long tradition of lifting terms from other languages, which has added to its strange mix of spellings. These are known as “loanwords,” even though we have no intention of returning them. A small sample of the contributions from abroad are: marijuana (Spanish), ghetto (Italian), yacht (Dutch), gesundheit (German), schmaltz (Yiddish), czar (Russian) and giraffe (Arabic). In some cases, more than one version sprouts and spreads. Take ketchup, which is believed to have come from a Chinese (Cantonese) term for “tomato juice” in the late 1600s. This is the standard spelling in Canada, although catchup and catsup are also used.

For the longest time, many of the people who could write didn’t seem to care if their spelling was consistent. In his book The Mother Tongue, Bill Bryson cites examples of words being spelled differently not only in the same document but in the same sentence. Pronunciations also varied from region to region. We used to sound out many of the now-silent letters – for instance, the “k” in know and knee (kuh-no, kuh-nee), as well as the “g” in gnaw and the “l” in would. And once upon a time, people said “oons” in one place and “wuns” in another. Eventually, we adopted the sound “wuns” and the spelling for “oons” (once).

A lot is two words. Alot is incorrect.

Madtown

I love these types of threads... I get me my word document and copies down all thee rulz. Then I emails it to allof my frends. I likes to sit down in front the computer and learn them rulz. I won't never use a lot as one wurd.

l8ter g8tor~

Good for you, because:
The UVic Writer's Guide


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A lot / Alot / Allot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot means "a lot": "A lot of pancakes." Note that this is an informal expression.

Allot means "to divide" or "to give out": "They allotted six square feet per family."

Alot means nothing, and therefore is not to be used under any circumstances.

Madtown

Sorry, I forgot

Madtown

What did you forget? That I wasn't Jubes or Z?

I forgot to add Smilies

Madtown

Ooohhhh.

MadMax:

Ahhh....that hurt.


AMEN TO THAT.


i didnt read the other stuff; im jus passing along some info.

When using effect, it is almost always a noun.

The effects of higher taxes results in lower stock market.

When using affect, it's almost always a verb.

Music affects my studies for the worst.

It's is the contraction for ''it is''.

It's for my brain, Mom.

Its is the possesive form.

Its love for math just went out.

Then refers to time.

Then I will take out the trash.

Than refers to comparisons.

Republicans are smarter than Democrats.

There is no such word as nuculur (pronounced new-cue-ler) . It is nuclear (pronounced new-clear).

The nuclear radiation fried my brains.



THE ABOVE SENTENCES ARE JUST EXAMPLES.

THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY TRUE.

L. Zeved

NECESSARILY

thx mike, you know i cant spell.

L. Zeved

I cringe everytime I hear Bush say 'nucular'. Im sure hes been told this is incorrect and has chosen not to change it's use.

I try to make my there, their and they're's correct, but sometimes it slips by me , also, to, too.
These mostly irke me in books where the writers and editors should know better.

Axed, for asked, sheesh.

When I worked as a nurse, I used to perform therapeutic plasmapheresis with a team of other nurses. We used to procure fresh frozen human plasma for patients who needed their diseased plasma replaced with healthy plasma for various blood disorders.

Frozen plasma would have to thaw before it could be pumped through tubes into a patient. I don't know how many times I heard another nurse call the lab and ask, "Has the plasma been unthawed?"

Unthawed?

I tend to play "grammar police" (even though I make my own mistakes on occasion...nobody's perfect ) both IRL and online in some of the other forums I frequent. I don't correct people on forums because they don't know me from Jimbo down the street and it would be rude (I do correct people I know well IRL, but only if I notice some sort of consistent 'error' on their part), but I do take note of improper grammar and most especially punctuation. Lack of capitalization and punctuation, as sort of a new sort of internet craze, really irks me. I don't like trying to decipher the meaning of a person's words and punctuation is a crucial factor in making sense of a jumble of words (IMO anyway). Semantics and word choice in general are big issues for me to, but that's more for myself than others...I am extremely particular about the words I choose and sometimes it is quite frustrating and even distracting when I can't find the perfect word for whatever I'm trying to say...

My mother was CONSTANTLY correcting grammar to the point of obsession, so I guess I inherited her corrective nature (to a lesser extent, thank goodness).

Oh and in case you haven't noticed, I tend to use parentheses FAR too often as well as elipses. I cannot help it - I hate ending sentences in the middle of my train of thought!

Personally, I've always seemed to have "issues" with the usage of which and that. I still can't always figure out which one to use when (never could figure out when to use por/para in Spanish, either...maybe I'm dysfunctional in that matter )

Oh and Artemise, I believe there are some studies about "axed" for "asked" being dialectical (rural south) and used in code-switching as well (most commonly among Blacks)...trying to find that info, with little success, but I know I've heard "axed" described as dialectical at some point in the past. It irritates me too, but I just chalk it up to a different way of speaking in certain places, I guess.

Oh boy, one of my favorite subjects!

Hey, I am an English major! First off, let me explain that there are two types of grammarians in the world: proscriptive and descriptive.

Proscriptive types tell everyone what to do. Descriptive types look at what people are doing with language. We might even substitute conservative for proscriptive and liberal for descriptive.

With grammar, as with politics, most professionals in the field fall somewhere between the two extremes.

So, what are we to do? We have old rules that ought to be ignored, such as the distinction between the pronunciation of the, and we have several levels of style.

Therein lies the answer: style. We need to use a style guide that puts stakes in the ground as to what to do in most situations. Some situations can't be foreseen, and there's where the writer/editor needs to use her/his good judgement.

Now for my pet peeve: I hate style guides that contain contradictions!

For my second pet peeve, I hate the use of "that" instead of "who" when writing about people. This misuse shows a lack of respect, in my humble opinion.

The third pet peeve, which I have seen regularly in student papers, is the misuse of the apostrophe in plural nouns (noun's). What is up with that?

Anyway, being an editor is good exercise for a writer, but writing and editing are two distinct skill and talent sets. Good writers tend to make bad editors, and vise versa. Let's just say a lot of moaning and groaning goes on when I am tasked to edit badly written student papers.

But writing is in my blood and is a great joy in my life. It makes me feel GOOD, like I knew that it would