YOU'RE YOUR

Gentle Readers,

I'm afraid I simply must bring to your attention another error I see more and more frequently. YOUR is not a substitute for YOU'RE.

YOU'RE = YOU ARE

YOUR = YOUR

Example of correct usage:

Your dick is so dinky that even when you're holding an entire handful of fishhooks, you can't find the aforementioned Mr. Winkles.

If you feel confused by your and you're, then substitute YOU ARE for the word in question. If YOU ARE makes sense, then you want YOU'RE. It's just like ITS and IT'S. Substitute IT IS to find out if you want ITS or IT'S because IT'S = IT IS.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Infinities of love,

Lola

HOPEFULLY HOPEFUL

Gentle Readers,

Being the wordaholic and grammar maven that I am, watching the news or listening to almost anyone talk is hell for me.

I try really hard not to let shit bother me too much and I seldom correct anyone. The English language must change, but I don't think I have to change with it. For example, I absolutely cannot bring myself to use impact as a verb.

Yesterday I wrote about some differences between American English and English English, mostly so I could use beaver, twat, etc. in a post, and I don't believe I mentioned spelling. Americans like color, neighbor, and so on, while Brits like colour, neighbour, and fannies.

Lately, however, on some American news programs I've seen adviser spelled advisor. Advisor is the British spelling. Has the AP style book changed its stance? I sincerely doubt it. I think the people doing the graphics for the TV newscasts just don't know how to spell.

A news program with a crawl across the bottom of the screen is pretty much unbearable for me because my eyes are drawn to the words, not the talking heads. I see spelling mistakes and factual errors in those crawls all the time.

So I seldom watch. Instead, I get my news from Dogs and Jeans.

In addition to like and yaknow, an overused word that gets to me is hopefully. I think I have mentioned this problem before, but like a nose that's ripe for picking, I can't leave it alone.

Hopefully should not be used to modify a sentence; that is, hopefully is taking the place of I hope. Some modern grammarians are beginning to accept this usage.

I can't take it. I really can't take it.

But I'll continue to try not to say anything when I hear it.

Infinities of love and correct grammar,

Lola

WOULDA COUDA SHOULDA

Gentle Readers,

I would appreciate it very much if you would be on the lookout for an error that I see more and more frequently. It's almost to the point that I can say it's ubiquitous.

Please watch the transition here from correct to incorrect. I hope it explains how I think we arrive at incorrect.

Correct: Would have - - Should have -- Could have 
I would have cut off Larry's balls but he apologized when I went to get the scissors.


Correct but not as precise: Would've -- Should've -- Could've
I should've cut off Larry's balls, but he ran away when I approached with the scissors.


Incorrect: Would of -- Should of -- Could of
Stop! In the name of love - - before you break my heart. Think it o-o-ver.


See where we've ended? We've moved from a correct word to an incorrect word, and I think it's because of  the spoken Would've, Should've, Could've. That VE sound seems to cause many listeners to believe it is OF. Thus, it leads writers to an incorrect word. The word should be HAVE, not OF. I see OF employed more and more frequently in place of HAVE.

Also, please watch out for "reasons why." It's redundant. You don't need "why" after you've written or said "reasons."

Your Lola is always looking for ways to help you improve your clarity and also enjoys being the dispenser of knowledge that has passed over so many innocent people's heads.

Infinities of love,

Lola

THEY GO LIKE

Gentle Readers,

It's time for the grammar bitch in me to come out again.

Stop talking about one person while using "they" as a pronoun.

Example: The parent wants to prove they are the best.

Parent is singular. They is plural.

I hear this all the time, so stop it. Just stop it.

And stop using "go" or "like" to replace says.

Example: We were talking and she goes I don't know know nothing about that stupid book cuz I hate to read.

OR

               We were talking and she's like I hate people with book learnin' cuz they don't got no common sense.

I have actually heard the line about people with book learnin' don't got no common sense many times. Well, I happen to have some book learning, but I have enough sense to come in out of the rain. I have enough sense not to smoke, and I have enough sense not to go out and get drunk and get in fights -- unlike many of the people I have heard who demean book learning. I also have enough sense to love books and appreciate my education. 

Excuse me all to hell.

Infinities of love,

Lola 

ME MYSELF AND I

Gentle Readers,

When did myself become a substitute for me or I? I've been hearing it for at least a couple of years and it's getting worse.

Example: Myself and John went shopping.

Should be: John and I went to a hotel.

The easy way to know if you should use me or I when you're gossiping about John and me is to leave John out of it and say I went to a hotel. That way you know it's not John and me went dancing because you wouldn't say Me went dancing -- or, oh my goodness, would you?

If you would, then you are too far gone and cannot be helped. That's even worse than myself.

Anyhoo, it's not myself. It's not; it's not; it's not.

However, I have also started to hear myself used by itself and not in a sentence involving another person. For example, Myself went up shit crick without a paddle.

Oh Lord, help me. Make people stop saying myself. I can't do it all by MYSELF correct use correct use correct use


Infinities of love,


Lola

SOUND THE LANGUAGE ALARM

Gentle Readers,

I have noticed an alarming trend during the past three or four months.

Some people are using "incidences" as the plural for "incident."

Example: So many incidences happened on my way to school that I missed English class and didn't hear the lecture on word usage.

The plural for "incident" has always been and remains to this day "incidents."

I consulted Fred, a.k.a. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, and he confirmed my belief. So I also took a look online and every dictionary or language use page I saw also confirmed "incidents" as the plural.

So how did "incidences" come into use?

I have no idea; I only know I'm seeing it more and more often and I don't like it.

But this is how language changes. In another six months, I betcha incidences will be all over the place and in another five years it will be accepted by some modern grammarians and a few years after that it may well be standard usage.

I'm sticking with incidents. It's correct.

What sayest thou, Gentle Readers? Have you noticed the trend?

And when you see it are you prepared to join with me in a futile attempt to nip it in the bud?

That which does not change dies; thus, language must change.

But I don't think that means I have to tolerate incidences.

And you don't either.

When I was a grader for the best English professor ever, he did not tolerate the use of "impact" as a verb. Although sentences such as "the car impacted the brick wall" are all over the place, you won't see impact used in this fashion in my message center.

I want to have a positive impact on the English language.

Infinities of love,

Lola