I consider myself reasonably skilled in writing, but I do know that I've learned some things incorrectly or developed a few bad habits over time. Writing properly is a great asset, as it conveys an impression of good language skills and education. I've found a website that provides all kinds of writing and grammar tips, and I thought others here might find it useful: http://www.getitwriteonline.com/

A professor from the University of Kansas decided to publish his pet peeves regarding language errors and it contains some handy tips: http://web.ku.edu/~edit/peeves.html

That is an interesting list! I happen to agree with many of them (<-- non-specific pronoun!), yet I wonder if a few might be preferences rather than hard and fast grammar rules. Languages change as people alter the way they use words and phrases over time (we no longer say 'thine' or 'thou' for example) (<-- don't speak parenthetically!), so it is difficult to determine for certain, at least for me, that all of the items on his list are indeed the currently accepted usages. Would anyone happen to have an English grammar text that is considered to be a current 'standard' who might verify any of these usages? This person is a professor of Journalism rather than English so I have to wonder if these are rules based on journalistic standards and not English language standards...

- Randy

Good ones those... I believe these all to be proper grammar and in some cases better stylistically.

A couple that always bother me...


Less and fewer. Less in quantity, fewer in (discrete) numbers.

The car with better fuel economy uses less gas.

There are are fewer people at work on nice days.


Sex and gender. Gender is for language terms(masculine/feminine) or for pipe fittings, or electrical connectors. Sex is for defining the sex of a person or animal. The problem here is that we often use male or female to specify either sex or gender.

A man is a person of the male sex.
ABS pipe fittings typically come in both genders so be sure to buy the correct one for your application.


edited to remove non-specific pronoun and add comment about usage.

A difficult line to draw, that between current usage becoming standards and standards becoming archaic. I do worry that our lauguage will become something ugly if we are not vigilant in our teaching the proper (read archaic) use of so many words, and just as importantly, sentence structure. It is important that we speak correctly, and write precisely. My students should be glad that the pen is mightier than the sword but not as deadly, for were it as simple as reaching to my breast pocket to met out punishment for "ascared" or "libary", with a deadly swipe, I wouldst.

English contains many, many, very useful words that most casual modern users have let slip, or worse denigrate as archaic. The result is their communication lacks precision and subtlety. This is a loss I lament. One not only needs the vocabulary, but also the understanding of usage so avoid looking uneducated at best, or illiterate at worst.

Its one of the joys of reading and writing for me.

As an aside a local radio station constantly misuses the following: mayoral and mayoralty. The news reporter who does this has a university degree from a respected university and when I hear it I want to mete out the same penalty as Clydesdave wouldst inflict on his students.

I am always shocked when I watch American television -- or hear people speaking in professional settings when I am back in the US -- at how common the misuse of "I" has become. Having been taught that it is wrong to say "Me and Bob went to the market," people now overgeneralise this rule and use "I" even when the first person pronoun is an object and "me" would be the correct word: "They gave it to Bob and I". The mistake seems to be becoming more and more common; I even heard a newscaster for a local morning show say this once. This is probably my worst grammar-peeve in English.

The one that really irks me is "alot". ?? A lot - we are not distributing shares of something, rather we are talking about a large quantity. Still, change is inevitable. The impoverishment of our language is assured, and those who continue to rely on archaic forms will simply appear as erudite geezers to the masses. As an aside, I attempted to decipher a text message the other day and only after about five minutes did I realize that indeed I was not reading The Jabberwocky, but rather some ersatz language of the young - I gave up in the end as Carroll made more sense to me.

- R