Quick and Dirty Tips Podcasts

Episode Transcript

Top Ten Grammar Myths
Episode 97: February 29, 2008

Grammar Girl here.

March 4 is National Grammar Day. So I've created a special grammar-related top 10 show to celebrate the occasion.

Organizer Martha Brockenbrough, who writes about grammar and language for Encarta, has fun suggestions for National Grammar Day, including holding a good-grammar potluck at your office or school and mixing drinks she calls grammartinis. She also suggests correcting other people's grammar, but I hope that instead of marching into grocery stores and scratching out misplaced apostrophes, people will spread the word about the language myths that well-meaning people argue about every day in offices around the world.

To help you along that path, here is my list:

Grammar Girl's Top 10 Language Myths:

10. A run-on sentence is a really long sentence. Wrong! They can actually be quite short. In a run-on sentence, independent clauses are squished together without the help of punctuation or a conjunction. If you write I am happy I am glad* as one sentence without a semicolon, colon, or dash between the two independent clauses, it's a run-on sentence even though it only has six words. (See episode 49 for more details.)

9. You shouldn't start a sentence with the word however. Wrong! It's fine to start a sentence with however so long as you use a comma after it when it means "nevertheless." (See episode 58 for more details.)

8. Irregardless is not a word. Wrong! Irregardless is a word in the same way ain't is a word. They're informal. They're nonstandard. You shouldn't use them if you want to be taken seriously, but they have gained wide enough use to qualify as words. (See episode 94 for more details.)

7. There is only one way to write the possessive form of a word that ends in s. Wrong! It's a style issue. For example, in the phrase Kansas's statute, you can put just an apostrophe at the end of Kansas or you can put an apostrophe s at the end of Kansas. Both ways are acceptable. (See episode 35 for more details.)

6. Passive voice is always wrong. Wrong! Passive voice is when you don't name the person who's responsible for the action. An example is the sentence "Mistakes were made," because it doesn't say who made the mistakes. If you don't know who is responsible for an action, passive voice can be the best choice. (See episode 46 for more details.)

5. I.e. and e.g. mean the same thing. Wrong! E.g. means "for example," and i.e. means roughly "in other words." You use e.g. to provide a list of incomplete examples, and you use i.e. to provide a complete clarifying list or statement. (See episode 53 for more details.)

4. You use a before words that start with consonants and an before words that start with vowels. Wrong! You use a before words that start with consonant sounds and an before words that start with vowel sounds. So, you'd write that someone has an MBA instead of a MBA, because even though MBA starts with m, which is a consonant, it starts with the sound of the vowel e--MBA. (See episode 47 for more details.)

3. It's incorrect to answer the question "How are you?" with the statement "I'm good." Wrong! Am is a linking verb and linking verbs should be modified by adjectives such as good. Because well can also act as an adjective, it's also fine to answer "I'm well," but some grammarians believe "I'm well" should be used to talk about your health and not your general disposition. (See episode 51 for more details.)

2. You shouldn't split infinitives. Wrong! Nearly all grammarians want to boldly tell you it's OK to split infinitives. An infinitive is a two-word form of a verb. An example is "to tell." In a split infinitive, another word separates the two parts of the verb. "To boldly tell" is a split infinitive because boldly separates to from tell. (See episode 9 for more details.)

And now, the number one grammar myth, which my Twitter friends chose over splitting infinitives [fanfare music]

1. You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. Wrong! You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition when the sentence would mean the same thing if you left off the preposition. That means "Where are you at?" is wrong because "Where are you?" means the same thing. But there are many sentences where the final preposition is part of a phrasal verb or is necessary to keep from making stuffy, stilted sentences: I'm going to throw up, let's kiss and make up, and what are you waiting for are just a few examples. (See episode 69 for more details.)

You can find more information about each of these myths in the Grammar Girl archives at quickanddirtytips.com, where you can also find my contact information and all the other great Quick and Dirty Tips podcasts such as Money Girl and Legal Lad.

Grammar Girl Summer Tour

Thanks to everyone who has voted on the cities I'll be visiting this summer. I'll probably announce the results the week after next. The tour is to promote my print book, which is coming out in July, and I just found out that you can preorder the book online. Right now it's available at Amazon.com, BooksAMillion.com, and you can also preorder it from your local bookseller by searching Booksense.com. I imagine it will also be available soon online through Powells and Barnes & Noble. So preorder it now to get an extra 5% off and you'll also be one of the first people to get it when it comes out in July.

That's all. Thanks for listening and happy National Grammar Day.

*A Digg user with the handle AndrewJC made an excellent point about this example: if you read it to mean "I am happy THAT I am glad," it's not a run-on sentence. A better example would be a sentence that can't be interpreted in multiple ways--something like I am short he is tall.

Comments (138) for Top Ten Grammar Myths | Subscribe to Comment

Jill Sellers Says:
3/27/2009 2:24:56 PM

The possessive of names ending in ess isn't mysterious. If the ess has a soft sound, just add an apostrophe. Xerxes' helmet, Moses' law. But if you acutally pronounce two esses when speaking, then add apostrophe ess. Most people would not say "Thomas' hat" but rather "Thomas's hat." I think AP style is aimed at saving newsprint and ink. By the way I love your blog!

Anne Millen Says:
3/22/2009 1:03:37 PM

Come on, Goofy! "Where are you at?" is slang. Say it, don't write it. And for the defenders of "irregardless" (which sounds distinctly George Bushish to me), the double negative renders it a positive, so why not say 'regarding", or "bearing in mind" or somesuch.

Steve Says:
3/3/2009 4:43:18 PM

I LOVE YOU GRAMMAR GIRL

quanie Says:
2/24/2009 5:45:57 PM

hey

Richard Says:
2/20/2009 3:43:52 PM

I thank GG for her work and dedication. There are many people out there, however, that are a bit too over-concerned with grammar. Someone above argues that grammar is not "ever-evolving," though I believe that it is, has, and always will, unlike the constitution. I think we have to listen to how it sounds. If it sounds intelligent (this may be a bit subjective) then it should be allowed. I am a non-grammarian English teacher and I believe in loose rules. Many (if not most) of the best writers push the boundaries and come up with extremely apt phrases and words that did not exist before or were frowned upon in Strunk and White. I am so frightened to write in a forum like this because some Grammar-Nazi is going to come and chop off my fingers.

Richard Says:
2/20/2009 3:30:15 PM

Sam Says:
2/9/2009 11:30:33 AM

I'm not sure how I feel about the "irregardless" myth.It's redundant. It seems like a cop-out to call it a word simply because some people say it. It's redundant.

Anne Millen Says:
12/16/2008 9:56:52 PM

Good stuff! The problem with split infinitives is that they make your work sound inelegant. "He wanted to always speak first" grates. "He always wanted to speak first" is smoother. "To boldly go where no man has gone before" may be famous but it sure is ugly!

marx Says:
12/16/2008 5:31:12 AM

(10) I am happy I am glad is not necessarily a run-on sentence. It can be short for I am happy that I am glad. (7) Your pronunciation in the podcast raises the question whether Kansas's and Kansas' are pronounced differently or the same. (4) That is not a myth but the truth. Consonants and vowels are by definition sounds and not letters. 'y', for example is a *letter* that is sometimes used to *represent* a consonant and sometimes used to *represent* a vowel. I'm aware that many people don't know that. But that doesn't make the rule a myth. (1) Of your three example sentences only the last one actually ends with a preposition. The other ones are particles as they are not part of a prepositional phrase (not even an elliptical one).

Desray J Britz Says:
11/25/2008 12:05:41 PM

Talk about joining the party late. Here I am in late November. Been blog browsing and ended up at the Grammar Girl myths. I simply love the debate about myths and how upset some folk become. I think I will play with this list on my blog and discuss some on my own Grammar Tips. My main work is editing academic writing, so this list will be fun to comment on in terms of what is considered suitable in an academic context. Irregardless is off my list, but most of the other points come up for consideration often enough in academic writing. You have no idea how often students are told never to use passive voice. The point is to use it sparingly and to use the active when possible. No such thing as never in English. The ebb and flow of language is ongoing. I have double fun as I work world-wide and so other factors like spelling also becomes part of the mix. Language heaven. www.blog.languageonline.us www.languageonline.us

Dean Says:
11/2/2008 8:53:55 PM

Great list, Grammar Girl--but please add this myth: Never start a sentence with "because." Oh, yes, you can! My students (I'm an English teacher) invariably tell me that previous teachers hammered this myth into their heads. This one makes me a little crazy.

kellyg Says:
11/2/2008 1:14:04 AM

Even with these rules, I think most people are still able to get their point across. GG is showing how English is evolving. We all studied grammar mostly in elementary school where teachers don't know anything. So, stop arguing. I'm a novelist and I break the 'rules' all the time, because I make my own.

Kristal Says:
10/27/2008 7:52:56 PM

I would think that a run-on sentence would be a long sentence and i didn't know irregardles was a word now i do.Thanks.

Dick Feyrer Says:
10/27/2008 4:28:02 AM

Grammar Girl's leniency strikes me as some kind of prolonged adolescent rebellion. English is alive, but so are traditionalists. Next she's say the U.S. Constitution is a living document and doesn't mean what it says. It's clearly not one world. Fortunately, I find what GG says humorous.

Les Says:
9/19/2008 9:26:24 AM

Grammar girl! thanks for the clear and concise explanations! I am happier about the way to write plurals now, as well as the rule about passive voice. I think I will incorporate some of your advice into my stories for listening on www.english-listening-world.com thanks a lot!

Nicole Says:
9/18/2008 11:34:31 PM

Gaining the publics trust. OR Gaining the public's trust???

Tarsha Says:
9/12/2008 3:51:57 PM

I need help in writing. My son is 8 years old and I not sure how to help him b/c I am a trouble writer. Please help me ! Example of his DOL: dad thinks I have ate to many hot dogs the woman sold corn lettuce and tomatoes usually butch my dog eats a lot but he don't get fat

Tee Says:
8/19/2008 11:53:15 PM

Thanks for the clarification on using "a" and "an". Someone wrote that the word "ukelele" didn't apply. (I can also include the words: unique and using) These words begin with a "Y" sound, not a vowel sound. "Y" is only a vowel when it sounds like a vowel. Most of the time, if not 100% of the time, when a word begins with the letter "y", it is a consonant. These words begin with a "y" sound, but begin with the letter "u." The soft "h" is also used with "an."

sharena Says:
8/4/2008 8:38:48 PM

Its nice to actually have these steps to follow, because i can now actually improve my compositions and be almost absolutely flawless .Thanks grammar girl your name should be changed to grammar queen

One_HotChef Says:
7/29/2008 8:09:00 PM

It is amazing to me that so many postings are written by seemingly educated individuals and yet they revert to such gutteral and sophomoric language and statements. Perhaps if we spent less time trashing Grammar Girl and more time correcting the mindless speech we all encounter on a daily basis, the idiots wouldn't be winning grammatically. At least GG is making an earnest effort and I applaud her!

Marlene Says:
7/16/2008 8:57:58 PM

GrammarGirlisaGrammarGoon makes a good point about the word, but his assertion is undermined by the fact that he spelled "irregardless" with a "u."

mike Says:
6/20/2008 11:11:00 PM

"Throw up" and "make up" are compound verbs so those examples don't end with a preposition. As for your third example, it's an interrogative sentence; the "myth" you bemoan only applies to assertive sentences. In short, there is no myth, the rule stands.

Tabish Says:
6/8/2008 5:33:50 PM

I follow all these rules already, but it is nice to be reminded that i am doing the right thing:) _______ http://writertabish.blogspot.com

Leanne Says:
5/20/2008 9:22:56 AM

When to use either / neither: One person says, "I don't want to go," and the other answers, "Me, either," or "Me, neither"? Big debate in our English dept.

GrammaGirlisaGrammarGoon Says:
5/14/2008 11:04:22 AM

Irreguardless is NOT a word, nor is it slang, colloquial or valid by any measure. It's a falsehood bandied by the ignorant in an attempt to display verbosity. Any writer who supports its use in any way is a fool. GrammarGirl you are a fraud.

don Says:
4/9/2008 2:33:58 PM

I wonder if some of you read the post before complaining about it... Grammar Girl has clearly admitted that "up" is not a preposition in "throw up" in the previous sentance she says that they are "part of a phrasal verb."

Don Says:
4/9/2008 2:22:56 PM

Coleki, sorry about singling you out… you seem to have lots of company in your desire to trash Grammar Girl just because she understands the fluidity of the language. Y'all can just get over yourselves. djb

Don Says:
4/9/2008 2:20:01 PM

Gee! People jump on the least possible mistake… (Well, I may occasionally point-out an omission or an inconsistency, but at lease (I hope) it doesn't sound mean or pompous as Ian, JM, and Coleki do in their missives! Saying that the examples are wrong, and that the writer doesn’t know her stuff is just plain rude. Ian, it would have been more accurate for you to say that Grammar Girl was incomplete in her example and definition and directed people to the linked page for a more completed discussion. "Mistakes were made." is a passive voice sentence; one reason to use the passive voice is that the actor who takes the action of the verb is unknown or undisclosed. JM, while your grasp of Latin and the literal translations are quite remarkable, had you followed the link, you would see that #5 was a distillation of the show she did on these two items and she did give the original Latin. (So, I'm being more generous to you than you were to Grammar Girl here… There is nothing to say you hadn't gone to that page to get the definitions that she left off here…). You guys do understand that she is recapping shows that she did and there is no way she could have done the entire ten shows in one episode, right? Get with the spirit! Coleki, I've decided not to respond to your missive. I had previously been unaware that you were the sole arbiter of what was and was not proper. Bit, here's a news flash. irregardless of your personal views and desires, the language is a fluid thing… Laser was not a word sixty years ago, but then nobody had thought amplifying light through the stimulated emission of radiation. I have no doubt that had you been around back then, you would have argued that laser wasn't a word so you forbade its use. (It would, however, still be a common word today had you been there then.) You can't hold back the breeze, blow with it. djb

Don Says:
4/9/2008 1:58:13 PM

It probably is just a regionalism (I was born and raised in the south.) but my understanding is that there is a huge difference between "Where are you?" and "Where are you at?" in their meaning. If someone asked me "Where are you at?" I would never answer that I am sitting at my desk, writing an email." I would be far more likely to answer that I am baffled at the person who thinks that "Where are you?" and "Where are you at?" are the same questions. The general usage of the former (where I come from) indicates a desire to know one's physical location while the preposition on the end of the later indicate a desire to understand one's attitude on some issue or another. Colloquially, you will often hear it without the verb: "Where you at?" Is this common only in the south? By the way, I agree that one should remove any superfluous (or extraneous) prepositions from the end of the sentence. djb

Don Says:
4/9/2008 1:47:43 PM

A note on enstarstarstar's comment below… The "in" in "inflammable" is not the same "in" as in "incomplete." It is not from the Latin "in" prefix (meaning not) as in INdecent, ILlegal, or IMproper (as Grammar Girl explained, the IN mutates to IM and to IL depending on the word negates) but rather, is from the Latin preposition in which means (basically) "very." It is the prefix in INcandescent, it also mutates (like the prefix) but in this case, it will sometime become EN, as in ENflame. I was always taught that the difference between flammable and INflammable was one of intensity. Flammable things (like paper or cloth) burn. INflammable things (like gasoline or grain dust) burn explosively. That they burn is not in question, it is just that one burns explosively. Granted, anything can be made to burn explosively, pulverize paper to a dust and it will burn explosively. Candle wax burns, but if you can atomize it, it will explode when ignited. djb

Carlos Prado Says:
4/5/2008 9:05:58 PM

Hi, there "Grammar Girl" staff. I love your show. I found you by chance and since then I'm helplessly hooked. I hope you keep doing things this interesting and entertaining. Thanks! By the way, I'd like ask a question: , are there any very common phrases we, Spanish speakers, use that, even though are grammatically correct, sound unnatural,weird or funny? Thanks again and I'll keep tuned in!

Sam :D Says:
4/3/2008 6:43:41 AM

This is *sniffles* SO BEAUTIFUL! This is going to give my writing quite a bit of a boost and now I understand why passive voice is better for science papers than English papers! Thank you!

kiki Says:
4/2/2008 1:30:06 AM

I am thoroughly amused by the vast majority of the comments here. Especially the comment about how ain't is a word because it's in the Oxford English Dictionary and irregardless isn't a word because it isn't. Well, I just went to the OED online and looked irregardless up. It is, in fact, in the Oxford English Dictionary. First documented usage in 1912. There you go. Dang, I love the screwed-up English language.

Brent Hodgson Says:
3/30/2008 12:27:16 PM

@weakljani and "a uniform". The rule stands. There is no vowel sound at the start of "uniform because it's pronounced "you-ni-form" and the "you" y sound is not a vowel sound. So was it a "useless argument" you raised? Or just "an uninformed" comment? I think you see my point! ;) @Graham Nickols Although arguably correct, "what" and "why" ask similar questions from different points of focus, and are not interchangeable. @Warner Anderson The beauty of the English language is in its Adaptability. If neologisms were never invented, we'd be speaking Old English, some Saxon dialect, or perhaps French - and having the same problems with the inflexible nature of language as the French are having now. @Janice Campbell raises a good point. In this example, the neologism is necessary for clarity. @RonF That's exactly what I was thinking when I read "to boldly tell" Maybe the verb "to go" wasn't adequate for the purpose of this article? @Shane You're correct - these are verb particles. Another example would be "When he heard the crash, he looked up." @rpmason I laughed too! @goofy Examples like that are grammatically incorrect... but only until they're used often enough. ;) @Arnold Attard Great comments! @Johnny Chimpo There's a comment down the bottom of the post about this. (See asterisk) @Brian Get your facts straight! From Wikipedia: "Irregardless is primarily found in North America, most notably in Boston and surrounding areas, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana" I think that's enough..

sana rizvi Says:
3/28/2008 3:22:11 AM

to enhance grammar skill and writing it is useful site.

Kelly Says:
3/24/2008 4:14:41 PM

Thanks for this! I used some of your points to continue an ongoing grammar argument with a friend. He still doesn't believe me, but it was nice to still have someone else on my side ;)

Katy Says:
3/23/2008 4:29:35 PM

some good tips ere, thanks! but those t-shirts are sooooo nerdy ;0)

Trevor Says:
3/19/2008 5:38:33 PM

I would add #11 -- Contrary to popular belief, it is acceptable in some cases to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction such as "but" or "so."

heather (errantdreams) Says:
3/19/2008 2:12:32 PM

Great post! Passive voice is often also the preferred voice for academic writing. I knew students who got in trouble in their science classes in college for *not* using passive voice.

Phil Says:
3/18/2008 5:31:51 PM

I beg to differ with your assertion that "irregardless is a word in the same way that ain't is a word". "Irregardless" is a twentieth-century conflation of "irrespective" and "regardless", doubtless coined by some poor soul with mediocre word retrieval skills. "Ain't" is an archaic contraction of "am not". If you consider "ain't" an informal word, how do you classify contractions, as a rule?

Witchwoman Says:
3/18/2008 2:11:21 PM

There is a new grammar trend sweeping America and I don't know if it's grammatically correct. If someone says "We are needing your help" instead of "We need your help" is that correct? Why would you use the former? It's kinda driving me nuts. I hear it on the news, co-workers, everywhere. Help :)

jay Says:
3/15/2008 5:36:28 PM

For what are you waiting.

Leah Says:
3/14/2008 2:15:10 PM

Can you say "more even," as in getting more revenge against someone who has already gotten 'even with' you? It seems that 'even' is a state of finality, as both sides have balanced out their actions against each other... so more even is like saying more perfect.

John Says:
3/13/2008 11:12:50 AM

weakljani, "uniform" and "ukele" start with a consonant sound - the same sound as in "you" and "yes".

weakljani Says:
3/13/2008 5:01:19 AM

Rule #4 says one uses an before words beginning with a vowel sound. The words "uniform" and "ukelele" don't follow this rule. Hmmm...

John Says:
3/11/2008 3:53:29 PM

1. Wow, there's a lot of hatred for "irregardless" here. Remember that there's a difference between describing a word and advising people to use the word. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were many other words that followed the same pattern as "irregardless": unboundless, undauntless, uneffectless, unfathomless. No one complained about them. 2. The idea that "unique means one" is an etymological fallacy. One of the meanings of "unique" is "unusual, rare" and has been for over a hundred years.

Jaigin Says:
3/10/2008 2:28:55 PM

"I am good" means the opposite of "I am bad." Good and bad in this example are adjectives. They modify the pronoun "I", so they're revealing the character, i.e. the goodness or badness of the speaker. . "I am well" means the opposite of "I am poorly" or "I am down". Now you have the adverbs "well" "poorly" or "down" which aren't talking about you but how you are, so they're modifying a verb. I know this is an analysis but the idea with language is to convey meaning and in the example there's actually quite a difference in meaning between "I am good" and "I am well." As we lose these difference in meaning, we become less able to express our ideas with clarity. Some would even say this could lead to less clarity in our ideas.

toneee Says:
3/10/2008 12:03:10 PM

Run-on sentences (I wasn't aware they were called that) are the absolute worst. I proofread for a living and the majority of our writers don't have any idea how to punctuate. I'm sure some of them are afraid of fullstops, as they often mash up two or three sentences into one big incoherent mess.

rpmason Says:
3/10/2008 9:29:57 AM

Wow, 100 comments. If you write in all active voice, there's a good chance your readers will start dozing off. During an edit, I purposefully go through my work and look for sentences that are suited for passive voice and switch them up.

Adam Says:
3/10/2008 3:00:11 AM

Joe said: "Unique means one. The number one offense in grammar is using unique with a modifier. “Very unique” should be a capital crime." While you're correct that many speakers misuse the added emphasis I disagree with you because levels of uniqueness can be compared. An item that is one of ten is less unique than one of ten thousand; 'very unique' would be one of a large group.

drawlr Says:
3/10/2008 12:10:10 AM

Grammar Girl is the result of the new grammar that started being taught in the 60s and 70s. The dumbing down of the English language.

chrissy Says:
3/9/2008 9:37:47 PM

Passive voice might not be correct but try to use it in a scholarly paper and you will get marked down for it. As has been pointed out, this only works for informal speech. Not for writing formally. So they're not really correct if you still can't use them in formal writing. For instance, you can butcher grammar however you want when you're speaking. If people do it enough, it will become accepted. That still doesn't make it okay for formal use, that's just how language evolves.

Jasmine Says:
3/9/2008 7:47:32 PM

Don't bother writing your book. Not everything in the article was incorrect, but there were enough fallacies to demonstrate that you are unqualified. We already have Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. Let's leave it that way.

Jade Says:
3/9/2008 5:21:34 PM

I think you'd better watch the grammar in your writing tips! In myth #6, for example, you wrote, "Passive voice is when you don't name the person who's responsible for the action." Using the phrase "is when" is incorrect because passive voice isn't an event or a point in time. The correct phrase would be "occurs when" or some variation of it.

waywardchild Says:
3/9/2008 3:08:36 PM

Years ago in the 12 Step rooms where I regained sanity and my humble share of serenity, my fellows taught me that the correct word is neither “regardless” nor “irregardless,” but instead “irredamnregardless.” Restoring the missing third syllable lends a certain rhetorical balance, which both speaker and listener find pleasing, thereby trumping logical consitency, grammatical convention, or intelligent behavior.

Tommy Says:
3/9/2008 1:31:51 PM

Hey! GG, could you *please* explain the difference between wit and humour to this lot of boring twats? And for what it's worth Coryan, (2nd post) even acknowledging the _dumbarse_ is too generous of you.

Public School Idiot Says:
3/9/2008 10:04:54 AM

I am weary of elitists who espouse the specious notion that only those educated in private school are truly well-educated. Alas, (to use the opening chosen by the pretentious pclaudel)admission to the majority of private schools entails a dubious "entrance exam," the results of which hinge on whether or not the applicants' check clears.

Grammar Girl Says:
3/9/2008 12:00:00 AM

Welcome! If you disagree with me, I urge you to read or listen to the episodes that go into more detail than the top 10 list. (The links are all in the article above.) Many of your objections are addressed in those more detailed articles.

Dan Says:
3/8/2008 9:19:32 PM

It saddens me when I hear or read informal language in a formal setting: Newscasters dropping the 'g' in 'ing' participles, and misused 'who' and 'whom.' However, I remind myself that language is a living thing. Some things will pass into proper usage. The verb 'to sit' is intransitive, 'to set' is transitive, but the sun sets. Someone's bad English centuries ago became the norm. I think the goal is to figure out what is preferred in speech and writing, but not to bemoan the passing of old usage.

Cit_hpns Says:
3/8/2008 9:08:17 PM

That is the kind of thinking, up with which I will not put. (Winston Churchill)

Rochelle Says:
3/8/2008 6:41:25 PM

Wow. I'm new to your site. The first comment I read is Brad's. Uh, Brad. I'm black and I have known the difference between e.g and i.e. for years. Stupidity is not hidden by good grammar.

pclaudel Says:
3/8/2008 6:29:59 PM

Alas, most of these "grammar myths" have nothing to do either with grammar or with myths. Some of them are opinions no one holds, and the rest are truisms that only idiots (i.e., people educated in public schools) confuse with truths. The most egregious bit of misinformation is present in the notes accompanying myth no. 1. While few people would ever insist that ending a sentence with a preposition is forbidden, Grammar Girl insists on demolishing this straw man by showing her own ignorance of the difference between an adverb and a preposition. Of the offered examples of acceptable sentences ending with prepositions--"I'm going to throw up," "let's kiss and make up," and "what are you waiting for?"--only the last example ends with a preposition. "Up," as used in the first two sentences, is an adverb, not a preposition; "up" may, of course, also function as a preposition (or as an adjective for that matter), but it's not wearing its prepositional hat here. In short, what we are presented with is a point that hardly needs making made badly. While I agree with our self-appointed guru-ette that grammar matters, Grammar Girl seems to be so grammatically "challenged"--to use one of the sillier terms pushed by the disability racket and the frauds who profit from it--that she might reasonably consider trading in her own hat for one that fits better. Perhaps if she has the figure for it, she might consider changing her nom de Net to Obama Girl II. He's someone who needs LOTS of correction!

Don Says:
3/8/2008 4:34:55 PM

My favorite is a poem (the author's name I've forgotten): Grammar has a rule absurd Which I would call an outworn myth. A preposition is a word You mustn't end a sentence with.

wormy Says:
3/8/2008 2:53:19 PM

@ ozzy, That's very common (and proper) usage in British English. -An American in Europe

Maple Says:
3/8/2008 12:42:45 PM

"You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition when the sentence would mean the same thing if you left off the preposition" Is it wrong if I put the 'off' at the end of this sentence?

steve aliment Says:
3/8/2008 12:42:20 PM

I dissagree with your "I'm good". That's hillbilly and wrong.

Strunk and White Supporter Says:
3/8/2008 11:31:10 AM

Number 7 is wrong. There is a clear discrepancy between the use of 's and s' according to "Elements of Style" making one use right - and the other wrong. You may claim to be an expert, but you are far from an authority. Do your readers a favor and make this (and the above) distinction.

Eric Says:
3/8/2008 10:55:06 AM

I personally don't use the word irreguardless. I do accept that it is acceptable in informal speech. The person using it may be an informal person and such speech patterns conveys who they are. They are not necessarily ignorant. The masses dictate the usage of words. The elitists may stay with classical English if they so desire. It will never become incorrect English, the same as wearing a suit and tie to a sporting event, as was done at the turn of the the last century, is still fine to do now. The majority of people no longer dress that way now and doing so separates one from everyone else if they choose to do so. One may wish everyone wore suits but that doesn't make everyone else in jeans and t-shirts incorrect. Under those circumstances the masses in jeans are more correct and the suit wearer is now a lonely elitist disliked by everyone else. Fight it as you may words happen like the word ain't. If someone uses such words and are trying to simply convey a thought and not creating English art it really can be over looked. Even by elitists or purists.

Chris Says:
3/8/2008 10:39:07 AM

Fascinating mix of comments, some right, some wrong, and some needlessly pedantic! However, for my two-cents worth, the question "Where are you at?" is surely more closely related to the hippy hypothesis "How is your brain this fine morning?"

gor Says:
3/8/2008 9:56:08 AM

I lament the loss of the participle. I keep hearing things like, "He had drove to the store" or, "He could've gave me the flu". I see these in the newspaper all the time by journalists who SHOULD have a grasp of the English language. .

Intl.SOS Says:
3/8/2008 9:53:51 AM

Thanks grammar girl, you made it real easy to find these rules. I was just thinking the other day about how i need to brush up on my grammar.

Tony Says:
3/8/2008 9:22:56 AM

Many people say "I wish I would have known"? I think the subjuctive, not past conditional, should be used in this case: "I wish I had known."

Tony Says:
3/8/2008 9:15:28 AM

Wes at 3/7/2008, 7:21:13 PM, writes: "It may sound a little stuffy, but I would think grammarians and linguistics afficionados would have a stronger appreciation for the 'proper' method." I believe he makes the double-conditional error here. The relevant clause should read: "I would think grammarians and linguistics afficionados have a stronger appreciation" or "I think grammarians and linguistics afficionados would have a stronger appreciation."

Stephen Says:
3/8/2008 8:55:20 AM

However, irregardless of the decision by Kansas' government and Texas's board of education, mistakes were made (e.g., no one received an MBA on time and students were told to quietly go about their business -- i.e., shut up and take it like a man); still, I'm doing good even though there's no one to complain to.

Chris Says:
3/8/2008 8:37:04 AM

My favorite quotation: "From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put." - Winston Churchill

DRW Says:
3/8/2008 8:11:38 AM

"Irregardless"? You're trolling. Common use is not an excuse for that kind of ignorance. May as well let "definately" go while you're at it. Or "I could care less". Or "aks". "I am good" - This isn't an issue of grammar at all, it's an issue of style. You don't tell people you are "good" because it's conceited to do so. Being "good" is not the same as being "in good health", or "well". A lot of your other points rely on irregular usage, and are exceptions to otherwise solid grammatical rules.

Josh Says:
3/8/2008 7:26:13 AM

"i.e." literally translates as "that is," from the Latin "id est." Some of your points are pretty borderline!

Johnny Royal Says:
3/8/2008 6:53:18 AM

The bottom line is... Grammar use is subjective, in the same sense that a person's local dialect is. Sure, you could argue poor grammar makes the writer look uneducated but it all comes down to perceptive style. Perhaps, this is why - in America - we have no national news Anchor Men/Women with souther accents.

Roy Says:
3/8/2008 6:41:19 AM

I used to teach writing in a university journalism school. I taught my students to be aware that there are formal and informal practices in both writing and speech and that to be good writers they had to develop an ear and an eye for all the different ways of verbal communication and be smart and flexible enough to know when and how to use them. During a semester, I reviewed the rules of "classical" grammar and held them to a high standard for grammar and style, but also told them to be ready to ignore a rule if following it strictly would lead to prose that was awkward or inauthentic. I told my students to strive to develop an ear for effective language and to make sure that what they wrote sounded good. I had them read their assignments aloud in class because I believe that if the text doesn't fall well on the ear, something is wrong and it needs to be rewritten.

Andrew S Says:
3/8/2008 5:56:51 AM

I have to agree with the anti-irregardless crowd here. Even if you can make the case that this bastardized word is okay, you still sound illiterate using it. The word has two negations built into it (i.e., the ir- prefix and the -less suffix) which is simply moronic. Technically, "irregardless" means the opposite of "regardless" which makes any advice to use it suspect at best. The rest of the article was spot on.

Nick Says:
3/8/2008 4:49:35 AM

I had a hilarious end-of-sentence-preposition moment one time. After uttering the sentence, "Oh, that's the guy I hooked up with," I said, "Oh, I guess that should be "The guy with whom I hooked up." Realizing that this was still technically wrong, I ended up with the ludicrous, "That was the guy with whom up I hooked!"

Jason Says:
3/8/2008 4:28:41 AM

#3 "Am is a linking verb and linking verbs should be modified by adjectives such as good." Adjectives never modify verbs. Adjectives modify nouns and pronouns. Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. I agree that "I am good" is acceptable, but "Grammar Lady" needs to rethink her reasoning. A first grader even knows that adjectives do not modify verbs.

Dave Says:
3/8/2008 4:01:12 AM

You really like saying WRONG!, don't you?

James Says:
3/8/2008 3:45:10 AM

Anyone who uses the word "irregardless" is an idiot. Anyone who tells people it's okay to use the word "irregardless" is even worse.

David Says:
3/8/2008 3:15:20 AM

What about the "David and I" at the end/beginning of the sentence myth? I hear that one propogated a lot.

Joe Says:
3/8/2008 3:06:18 AM

Unique means one. The number one offense in grammar is using unique with a modifier. “Very unique” should be a capital crime.

ozzy Says:
3/8/2008 2:51:17 AM

One thing I see misused so often is: "The band are [insert deed]," or "The company are [insert deed]." Each of those _is_ singular. "The band is," and "The company is." Also, being a programmer, I'd rather see punctuation marks that aren't actually part of the quoted sentence, be contained outside of the quotes. After all, they are not a part of the original sentence.

Mark Says:
3/8/2008 2:36:15 AM

The comments are more interesting than the article. :x

Graham Nickols Says:
3/8/2008 2:27:24 AM

"what are you waiting for" is poor English. The correct form is "why are you waiting"

Andrew Hallock Says:
3/8/2008 12:40:01 AM

I've been studying grammar and programming languages for a while. Some of these comments are amusing, some dead on, and some dead wrong. Listen, you can end your sentences with prepositions, you can begin your sentences with conjunctions, such as "and", "but", and "or", and you can definitely use the passive voice. What professional writes realize is, good writing is not based arbitrary rules, or following rules religiously just because some over zealous, non-thinking asshole told you it's "wrong". It's about content. It's about expression. Are you being clear, concise, and articulate? In other words, is it damn good writing? That's what really matters, not bullshit rules that people follow doggedly without any logic or reason. Why can't you end a sentence with a preposition? You can. And "irregardless" is a grammatical word - maybe not an official word in Oxford - but grammatically it's logical. What's illogical is the person's intended meaning.

Cynthia Says:
3/8/2008 12:04:35 AM

Items 1-8 are dead on. Couldn't agree more, and I have been a grammarian for many, many years. However, splitting infinitives is what one might call "grammatically tacky", and ending a sentence with a preposition is still wrong, though, as Fowler indicated, there are limits or, to use his bad example of how too far not to go: "There are some things up with which we shall not put." In other words, ending a sentence with a preposition is bad unless you can't think of another way to say it without being overly awkward.

passive Says:
3/7/2008 11:57:09 PM

The most common argument against passive voice is that it weakens the writing. Editors tend to believe that active voice is more engaging, while passive voice can fly under the radar. A prime example of this difference is legal writing. Law students (who eventually become lawyers) are taught that when doing written advocacy, facts beneficial to your client should be expressed using active voice as a form of emphasis. Conversely, facts damaging to your client should be written in passive voice which, ideally, buries them inside a long sentence (which frequently results from the wordier passive voice).

ben Says:
3/7/2008 11:46:41 PM

Elsewhere, something rather deep about the question of ending sentences with prepositions: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002670.html

[808]MadHatter Says:
3/7/2008 11:29:03 PM

What tripe! These "grammar rules" only work in common parlance, (when it's easier to ignore the idiot than say anything,) NEVER in writing. Try again!

Topher Says:
3/7/2008 11:21:28 PM

Can anyone supply the full story surrounding the quote from (supposedly) Winston Churchill, in which he replied to some statement about grammar with "That is the kind of thing up with which we must not put"?

Big Texas Cheeseburger Says:
3/7/2008 11:15:33 PM

I agree with the anti-irregardless chorus expressed in this forum. There is an other double negative word that reeks of redundancy: underneath Please choose either under or neath. kthxbye

enstarstarstar Says:
3/7/2008 11:03:39 PM

A few comments: 10. Actually, the sentence "I am happy I am glad" is perfectly grammatical under the assumption that the speaker is expressing a sentiment along the lines of "the fact that I am glad right now makes me happy." With the interpretation you've implied, though, it is indeed run-on (and, for that matter, syntactically ungrammatical). 8. "Irregardless" is a word that, if nothing else, shows the complexity of English morphological construction. It's the yang to a word like "inflammable"'s yin --or, perhaps, the underlying /in-/ in "irregardless" is the /in-/ for the "this can be set on fire" meaning of "inflammable", and there's another /in-/ prefix to give us the second meaning. 6. Yes. Passive voice is, indeed, a vital part of the English language that does not deserve any prescriptive grammatical stigma. 4. The reason for this is phonological, which you have already stated. The "M" in "MBA" is actually like /?m/ (depending on your dialect, of course). Another interesting question comes from this: what about using "an" before a word like "historical"? It happens all the time in high-brow writing, and I always wonder to myself how the writer would pronounce the word aloud. Orthography, after all, bows to pronunciation in the end. 3. There are complicated semantic things that go on in a sentence like "I am good", but I will agree with you that it does serve as an acceptable response to "How are you?" 1. This is way too complex an issue for me to do anything but politely disagree with the first part (while thumbs-upping the second). In fact, sentences like "Where are you at?" or "Where are you from?" are perfectly acceptable--just not from a prescriptive style book's point of view.

rynzunza Says:
3/7/2008 10:48:05 PM

Have you ever heard someone say "supposebly" instead of supposedly? The wide misuse of the word "beastiality" instead of bestiality (bes'che-al'i-te). You’ve probably heard about the dreaded dangling preposition, and maybe you’ve even quoted that old standby from Winston Churchill, “That is something up with which I will not put.”

Chris Says:
3/7/2008 10:39:27 PM

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. --Winston Churchill

Dennis Says:
3/7/2008 10:10:26 PM

Under the number one myth, "throw up" and "make up" do not involve the use of prepositions as has been correctly pointed out by another person in the comments section. However, the phrase "what are you waiting for" does use a preposition and hence is grammatically incorrect. The phrase "for what are you waiting" shows the correct usage.

Dead language Says:
3/7/2008 10:04:01 PM

There's really no reason to even use "i.e." and "e.g." anymore. Just say "that is" or "for example".

John Says:
3/7/2008 9:48:00 PM

I love E. B. White's comment: I want to tell how to end a sentence with five prepositions. A father of a little boy goes upstairs after supper to read to his son, but he brings the wrong book. The boy says, 'What did you bring the book that I don't want to be read to out of up for?'

Dan Isaacs Says:
3/7/2008 9:47:57 PM

Can I get a ruling on the use of "architect" as a verb? This annoys the hell out of me.

Dale Says:
3/7/2008 9:44:32 PM

Wrong! "Irregardless" is not a word - but "dumbass" is, and it is the word I use to describe people who use "irregardless". Also, "e.g." stands for "exempla gratia" meaning "for example", and "i.e." stands for "id est" meaning "that is".

kroyster Says:
3/7/2008 8:37:22 PM

Irregardless is a word in the same way that 1-1=1 is math. They're both wrong. I'm all for the evolution of new words like "ain't", but irregardless is a double negative, and so will always be incorrect if used to mean the same as regardless.

Dave Richards Says:
3/7/2008 8:29:10 PM

The one that really irks me is people using 'less' when they should use 'fewer'. It's so widespread nowadays (you see it on TV news, in newspapers and magazines, and, to my eternal annoyance, in every supermarket on '10 items or less' signs), that I think it's only a matter of a few years before it's deemed standard English and 'fewer' goes the way of the dodo.

Jerry Kindall Says:
3/7/2008 8:26:09 PM

Yeah, "throw up" and "make up" are two-word verbs, so the "up" isn't really a preposition, but they are just the kind of sentences that misguided people who don't actually understand sentence structure would try to "fix." Unfortunately, "Up is the direction in which I will throw" doesn't quite cut it when you're dashing for the loo. Also, the canonical example of when you almost always should use the passive voice is in the case of tragedy, such as "she was hit by a car" or "he was killed by his stalker ex." Note that in these cases it is perfectly clear who did what; the sentence structure merely emphasizes the victim. I do have to laugh at the fellow who thinks a word's not a word until Oxford puts it in the dictionary. I wonder how in the world we communicated before dictionaries existed to tell us what words to use!

Drjipbip Says:
3/7/2008 8:21:06 PM

Anyone who uses the word "irregardless" should be publicly executed.

Steve Says:
3/7/2008 8:08:47 PM

You all think "Where's it at?" is bad...but down here in Somerset the locals ALL say "Where's it to?" which is surely 100 times worse?!

mark Says:
3/7/2008 8:07:49 PM

What country is this aimed at? Unless you are learning English as a second language, surely you learn this sort of stuff in school when you are like 7 or 8? "I'm going to throw up" seems like an apt example.

Adam Says:
3/7/2008 7:51:03 PM

"7. There is only one way to write the possessive form of a word that ends in s. Wrong! It's a style issue. For example, in the phrase Kansas's statute, you can put just an apostrophe at the end of Kansas or you can put an apostrophe s at the end of Kansas. Both ways are acceptable. (See episode 35 for more details.)" Avoiding Jesus possessive and possessive plural forms for the moment, it seems to be made far more complicated than need be. If the word doesn't flow smoothly in speech with an added 's' sound, you use a lone apostrophe in writing. 'Kansas' statue' sounds much better than fighting through 'suszuzs' and on, into a forth 's' sound.

sabat Says:
3/7/2008 7:40:36 PM

Nutty rules like "no split infinitives" and "no sentences ending with prepositions" come from an ill-conceived attempt at moving English toward a Latin ideal. E.g., since you can't split an infinitive in Latin (you'd be splitting a single word), you shouldn't in English. Yes, I'm being a smartass by using E.g.

alejo699 Says:
3/7/2008 7:39:22 PM

I was never taught that the passive voice was wrong, just that it was weak. Even in Grammar Girl's example it sounds weak. "Mistakes were made" sounds like it's trying to avoid saying a person made the mistake. That said, I do agree passive voice is grammatically proper in the right context. Also, "irregardless" always reminds me of people who are trying to impress me with their wordiosity. As Inigo said to Vezzini, "That word you keep using? I do not think it means what you think it means."

Weldon Says:
3/7/2008 7:34:20 PM

How about "Don't start every paragraph with the sentence 'Wrong!'". I felt like I was getting yelled at. Great article but watch those exclamation points it really ruins your tone.

mal Says:
3/7/2008 7:32:46 PM

Historically, the word "ain't" was originally a contraction of "am not" (c. 1706). It was not until it became widely misused as a contraction of "are not" and "is not" in the Cockney dialect popularized by Dickens that it fell out of favour with lexicographers. Whereas "ain't" has its origin as an authentic word when used correctly in an historical context, the same cannot be said of "irregardless," which is plainly wrong and, in my opinion, should not be accepted as proper English, even informally. Sources: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ain%27t http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=irregardless

Greg Says:
3/7/2008 7:22:20 PM

I was hoping to see "You shouldn't start a sentence with the word and." As far as I know it's acceptable to do this if done correctly. And it makes for damn snappy writing as well.

Wes Says:
3/7/2008 7:21:13 PM

Yes, the above posters are correct; the examples you give for preposition use are actually idiomatic or are used as adverbs, i.e. describing how one would throw in the case of "to throw up". However, I disagree with Arnold; there's nothing awkward about proper object construction if it is practiced regularly. It may sound a little stuffy, but I would think grammarians and linguistics afficionados would have a stronger appreciation for the "proper" method. :)

not irregardless Says:
3/7/2008 7:15:16 PM

Yes, "irregardless" is a word. But it's not the word most people think it is when they use it, which makes it unlike "ain't" in any grammatically significant respect. "Irregardless" is the mutant result of people combining "regardless" and "irrespective." The result is a word that means exactly the opposite of what its user intends, i.e. "with regard to" instead of either regardless or irrespective. Its inclusion in the dictionary should not be taken as an indication of its correctness. Ain't, on the other hand, is a colloquialism but is not frequently improperly used in the way "irregardless" is: people do not say "I ain't" when they mean to say "I am." If you're going to try teaching people about grammar (and publish a book on it), it would be better if what you taught them was accurate. Instead of perpetuating the fallacy that "irregardless" is, considering the intention with which it is most frequently used, a grammatically acceptable use of the English language, consider explaining why it's improper as used and get people to say regardless or irrespective.

Scott Says:
3/7/2008 7:13:51 PM

Unirregardless of how many times people will use "irregardless," I will treat it the same as if they spelled lose when they meant loose—it is not a word. To me, there is a difference between making up a new hip word (blog, Wii) or intentionally creating a new spelling (skilz), and just plain misusing language and word. Irregardless lies in that category.

Craig Says:
3/7/2008 7:11:48 PM

@ Shane-- I echo your comment. I am the editor of a law journal and one of our rules is that we capitalize all words in a title except (among other things) prepositions of four or fewer letters. According to my dictionary, up can be used as a preposition and an adverb. I think the examples given "throw up" and "kiss and make up" are examples of when it's being used as an adverb and not a preposition. Also, with respect to run-on sentences, I don't think the example given adequately expresses what a run-on sentence is, and I wouldn't necessarily characterize the example sentence as a run on. That said, I think a run-on sentence is difficult to define, but "I know it when I see it." To me, a run-on sentence is when a later clause in a sentence fails to build on or add to the central theme of the sentence. Or something like that.

Maven Says:
3/7/2008 7:07:32 PM

"Grammar Girl" appears to be under the impression that if enough stupid people do a stupid thing, it ceases to be stupid. She's wrong. "Irregardless" isn't just bad grammar, it's RETARDED grammar. It's example of uneducated morons trying to sound smart by misusing words that they don't understand. I mean, why have grammar rules at all if we're just going to say "If enough illiterate dweebs do it incorrectly, it's suddenly correct"?

Brian Says:
3/7/2008 6:44:54 PM

It is fairly obvious to me that in at least some of the cases "Grammar Girl" does not know a damned thing about grammar. Irregardless is NOT a word. Ain't is a word because it was added to the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. Just because people use a word does not mean it is really a word. Ain't was not a word officially until it was added to the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary.

matt Says:
3/7/2008 6:38:17 PM

for #3, I thought the no-no was, "I am [doing] good." People put that extra unneeded word in there.

Sal Vatore Says:
3/7/2008 6:32:26 PM

"Where are you at?" is not informal. It is poor English. "Where are you?" is sufficient. "That's where it is."

coleki Says:
3/7/2008 6:29:58 PM

#8 is incorrect. No matter how often people try to use "irregardless" to mean "regardless", I am not going to let them. The confusion here must arise because not enough people know that the prefix "ir-" means "not". "Irregardless", then, would be a double negative in a single word- a new low for grammar.

JM Says:
3/7/2008 6:07:22 PM

#5 is plain wrong. e.g. is short for the Latin exempli gratia, meaning "for the sake of an example." i.e. is an abbreviation for the Latin "id est" meaning "that is". "In other words" is an incorrect way of translating i.e. They should be used as follows: e.g. provides a finite number of examples when many exist. As in: "There are many good books (e.g. David Copperfield or The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.)" i.e. precedes a clearer statement of something just introduced. e.g.:"Americans have a law that protects their right to free speech, i.e. the First Amendment." Hope that is fixed above.

ian Says:
3/7/2008 6:05:51 PM

#6, quite remarkable. This is factually incorrect, which, as I said, is remarkable because the page cited to, on this very site, gives a factually correct definition of the passive voice. Makes one wonder how much the author actually understands the subject matter.

Johnny Chimpo Says:
3/7/2008 5:43:06 PM

#1: "I am happy I am glad" is not necessarily a run on sentence if you read it in the proper way - i.e., being happy about being glad. You could have picked a better example methinks.

Susanna Says:
3/7/2008 12:07:22 PM

My husband often complains about his former English teachers who told him the passive voice was always wrong. He pointed out to them that many great works of literature contained the passive voice. They countered that he was a student, not a great author. He wondered how he was ever going to become one if he wasn't allowed to emulate them.

Allan Jenkins Says:
3/5/2008 6:41:01 PM

To neatly tie #3 and #1 together (and violate #2), "Where're y'at?" is, in some communities in southern Louisiana, a common way to ask "How are you?".

RonF Says:
3/5/2008 5:36:21 PM

Without split infinitives we'd lose one of the most famous mission statements in our culture: "To boldly go where no man has gone before."

Arnold Attard Says:
3/5/2008 2:16:32 PM

Phrases ending with a preposition are an important characteristic of modern english both written and spoken. They occur with idiomatic verbs: 'what are you looking for?', and with phrases where the relative pronoun isn't used: 'The person I live with', in older forms of english it would have sounded like this:'the person with whom I lived'. This latter form is derived from latin syntax. The saxon structure has a better syntactical flow and quickly identifies subject and object at the beginning of the phrase. 'The people we gave it to', sounds a lot better than 'The people to whom we gave it'. Foreign students find it a fascinating issue but native english speakers and teachers tend to take it for granted and often goes unexplained both in class and textbooks.

Janice Campbell Says:
3/4/2008 1:14:42 PM

The term 'pre-order' makes perfect sense if you understand its implication. When you 'order' something, you expect that the merchant has it in stock, and you will receive it quickly. When you pre-order, you understand that the item is not yet available, and you will receive it once it's available. The difference lies in the expectation and timing of fulfillment. The alternative to 'pre-order' is to state 'You may order the book, but it's not yet available, but when it is, we'll ship it to you.' Why bother when you can just say 'pre-order?'

Amity Says:
3/3/2008 1:22:36 PM

It makes me cringe when people say, "Where are you at?" Just because people say it a lot doesn't make it correct. The "at" is completely unnecessary and a waste of time, even if it doesn't change the meaning.

Warner Anderson Says:
3/1/2008 12:19:08 PM

I have to laugh at GG's use of "pre-order" three times. George Carlin joked about a similar term in one of his comedy routines: "pre-boarding." Either you board or you don't; either you order or you don't. Pre-order seems like a useless neologism. If I pre-order, do I have to pre-pay?

Shane Says:
2/29/2008 12:03:46 PM

In the phrases "I'm going to throw up" and "Let's kiss and make up" doesn't the "up" function as a verbal particle instead of an adposition? The particle looks like an adposition, but it and the verb itself together function as a phrasal verb. You can do this with adverbs like in the sentence "Let me through" or adpositions like in "I'm going to look after my sick mother."

rpmason Says:
2/29/2008 11:59:34 AM

On an episode of Designing Women, the receptionist asked some classy women, "Where y'all from?" A classy woman replied, "Where we're from, we don't end a sentence with a preposition." To which Charlene replied, "Where y'all from, jerk*?" I still laugh 20 years later! *Not the actual term of endearment used.

goofy Says:
2/29/2008 9:32:08 AM

"That means "Where are you at?" is wrong because "Where are you?" means the same thing." Just because two sentences mean the same thing doesn't mean one is wrong. I think it makes more sense to say that "Where are you at?" is informal. Anyway, keep debunking myths!