Grammar Gripes and Other Psycholinguistic Squawkings

the new leader is what is apparently a contest--perhaps informal---for the best typo in a romance novel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/boo...typo-romantic-novel-susan-andersen?CMP=twt_gu

 

That reminds of the old bit on the internet where "wand" is changed with "wang" in select Harry Potter book excerpts - really gives it a different take.

Two of my personal annoyances I hear at work from the supervisors - "Chris and Me are going to ........." and over the radio "Name here Where are you at?"
Both of those are grating to my ears.

 

What makes it even more funny is that it still works with the physiological description of the moment.

 

Blindly grasping straws
leaves me drowning in debris
which you know I like.

The trick in understanding
is the feeling in between your ears
at the times you know you do.

 

I could of held back but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong.

In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.

Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the fax. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

 

Your totality,
not fat like avocado,
is too nourishing.

(I don't understand this game.)

 

I use too many commas. Except in this post.

 

I didn't read all seven pages of this, and this isn't technically grammar, but I hate it when people spell it "congradulations". Also, I find it hard to be critical, because it appears to me at least that the older I get, the more sloppy my grammar and sentence structure becomes.

 

My main gripes are these; the misuse of "your" and "you're", the misuse of "could of" instead of "could have", and the non-use of paragraphs. I explain to people that using paragraphs is like taking a nice long breath in between thoughts. Trying to read a large collection of sentences with no paragraphs is actually quite painful.

 

reminds me of this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qImZ75hyXw#t=1m21s

 

Loose vs. lose.
I need to loose weight because my jeans are no longer lose.

 

It's definitely what, Phil?

 

Here are just a few of my grammar gripes:

• People saying
  
  or
  
  when they should say
  
  or
  
  They seem to have forgotten the distiction between singular and plural.
• People saying
  
  when they should say
  
  Would they also talk of animals types?
• People saying
  
  when they should say
  
  Not that difficult to get right. If it's countable say
  
  if not say
  
• People saying
  
  when they should say
  
  Usually they just don't think why they are using the word
  'I'
  The rule is usually simple, take away the third party and see if it sounds right. If it doesn't it usually isn't.
  
  Wrong.
  
  is clearly incorrect.

 

Interchanging further and farther.

Farther: More remote; more distant than something else.

(Winston Churchill)
Further: To a greater distance; in addition; moreover.

(Churchill)

Source: BrainyQuote

*I still get them mixed up.

 

Algenon Razamataz, I have read, in many places, that the rule for fewer and less is only a rule of thumb and not a grammatical rule. One is free to use them interchangeably. However, common usage does have an effect on how they get used.

 

How about that oxford comma?