Grammar - for the pedantic

[Jon]

Consider the preponderance of writers in this forum, I think it is rather appropriate for there to be a thread on grammar! My English teacher would be proud!

Are there factors for debate between writers, when it comes to grammar? Or has the tongue loosened somewhat, with the advent of text speak and acronyms taking over the world. e.g. NMR (naked mole rat)?

 

[Bee]

I personally overlook grammar. I only pick you up on it because there are so few other areas where I can best your intellect.

But yes, there is a difference between style and grammar. Take the poet ee cummings. He didn't use capitals at all. Did his work suffer for it? Were his poems harder to access because of it? No - it was simply a stylistic choice.

Another example would be quotation marks to indicate dialogue. I favour 'single quotes' rather than "double quotes". Both are perfectly acceptable as they are merely an aid to guide the reader.

There are numerous things creeping in to the language which are the subject of some debate. For example, I hear people say frequently: I am bored of [x]. It grates on me because I think it should be bored by.

That's just one example - there are plenty.

 

[Bee]

And you know you spelled grammar incorrectly in the thread title?

 

[Jon]

The irony is with me. But please note that this is a grammar thread, not spelling.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have found that grammar can be a pain in the toches when writing using a modern word processor that does all sorts of grammar checking for you. The feature is useful because it catches misuse of words that are homonyms. One simple example: It catches questionable cases of "which/that" confusion (regarding what usually introduces each type of subordinate clause.) However, the damned "grammar police" give me absolute FITS when I have one of my characters speak "in vernacular" and thus use a colorful turn of phrase.