Talk:Common English usage misconceptions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Problematic scope

Personally, I have a problem with the way some of the misconceptions are phrased, which isn't so much with the article as the territory it covers (i.e. it comes with the territory). e.g. "There is no rule against ending a sentence with a preposition." As the next sentence notes, there is a rule against it, it was just invented as a rule. But aren't all things invented at some point? Like capitalising sentences, or not capitalising nouns as in German. All these things must start somewhere. I think it could be better phrased to say that not all author/guides believe it wrong. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A fair point. Perhaps the lede section could identify that these are all modern misconceptions. That would be one way to handle it. Another would be using more precise langauge in the text as you note. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice my concerns have not been addressed: we are still told "there is no rule" when clearly there is, it's just not universal. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a conflict, but perhaps more precise language could be employed. Are you referring to the word "idea"? It's true that some people in previous centuries had the idea that it was wrong, but I don't think (IMHO) that translates to a "rule". Perhaps it would be clearer if it was identified that what is being taught today in schools is erroneous. That it is erroneous is explained on two counts. The first is elaborated in endnote 1 (no textbook supports it). The second is covered, in general, in the lede. There is no prescriptive "rule" in English. Thus, the idea that there is a "rule" that precludes ending a sentence with a preposition must be wrong. What authority could prescribe it? I am not aware of one. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it again and saw that the use of the word "rule" could be confusing—especially as explained in the lede. I adjusted the text. Hopefully, it's more acceptable and less ambiguous. Thanks for pointing it out. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I wonder if some of these "rules" aren't really just "stronger than average suggestions" in order to make writing smoother, or less choppy, or just more interesting. In many of the cases here, such as Starting with And/But or Ending with prepositions, I tend to use the rule to go back and take a second look at my writing. But I only change the text sometimes. What do people think of this–or, alternatively, where could such a note fit into the article? ~~StevenJ81, 14:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I would note that at least some is ingrained habit. I can hardly keep myself from typing two spaces after a period; I have been doing so for 35 years of typing. ~~StevenJ81, same time

As far as the first note, we're interested in statements from reliable published sources (as I'm sure you know). For example, I have a source that also said (IRT the and/but misconception) that it's fine, but be careful not to begin too many sentences with and or but because it could seem repetitive. That seemed like unnecessary detail here because, IMO, that goes with just about any word, whether at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence. The same could be said about beginning a sentence with the word "however", for example. But we're not trying to address techniques for better writing here; that would smack of an essay I think. This article is devoted simply toward highlighting misconceptions in an encyclopedic manner.

As far as adding a note about it: if you can find a reliable and verifiable source that makes a relevant statement, perhaps as a note at the bottom, it might add to the article. I'd just be careful about straying too far from the crux of the article—illustrating misconceptions.

For two spaces between sentences, I know of a number of people that successfully made the change to one space after a week or two of practice. I doubt if anyone will complain about you using two spaces though, for most uses. People are pretty used to it. If you've read the sentence spacing article, you can just make informed decisions about it when needed.

Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Bolding the topic

Topic needs to be bolded at the lead section. - AnakngAraw (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More instances of usage misconceptions

A great page, which fills a much needed gap.

One example:

This plane needs flying. I have for some time been looking for grammar examples of this usage. Many people seem to use it for some verbs but not others, e.g., "This shirt needs washing". I have always believed the correct usage is "This shirt needs to be washed." I have not found the construction approved in the english grammar guides I have looked in, but I also don't find too much criticism of the usage either. Would this misconception be valid for this page? (If references could be found). Geoffjw1978 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from my suggested inclusion criteria above, I don't think anything is off the table. The key thing is finding a reliable source that describes this as a modern "common misconception", or similar wording—like "myth". If you can find one or more reliable sources that do that, I think its fine. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Xmas - really?

Must we really include this silly drummed-up political canard among actual linguistic misconceptions? I see that it's taken from the same book as some of the other entries, but surely we don't actually include everything that appears in that book. The "Xmas" entry seems out of place. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be out of place. Then again, the article could develop in such a way that it's not. Perhaps we should wait for some others to weigh in. If the consensus is to remove, so be it. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the entry for xmas. I was under the misconception that it was a new slang term, a bit like text-speak, hence looked down on by traditionalists. To find it is centuries old makes me feel less guilty when abbreviating to xmas.  ;-) Geoffjw1978 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I do, too. Perhaps the political issue can be downplayed in the original article, but the valid and substantial history is worth sharing–and the fact that people use that misconception to play it into a political issue is therefore also worth sharing. ~~StevenJ81, 14:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this entry should be included, for the reasons cited above, although I do somewhat agree with Roscelese that "Xmas" is of a slightly different ilk from the other entries, which take the form of grammatical fiats. But extra care should be taken to strictly abide by WP's NPOV policy (note the split infinitive), because even the slightest reference to a political or religious issue (no matter how ill-informed the latter is) will inevitably attract contentious posts that miss the larger point. (I can see/hear the headlines now....) BTW Geoffjw1978, although "xmas" (uncapitalized) may be acceptable in text- and Twitter-speak, shouldn't the X be capitalized in other contexts, e.g., WP posts, because it's the equivalent in the Roman alphabet to the first letter in a Greek proper noun?  ;-) Otherwise, abbreviate to your heart's content! --Jackftwist (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dangling modifiers

This seems like it might be a good place to bring this up - not necessarily because it's a misconception, but because people who have done/are doing/will do research on this article might come across something. I've brought the issue up before, inconclusively, at Talk:Dangling modifier#History of the rule; other languages - namely, the history of the dangling modifier being designated incorrect, when many reputable texts use it. (eg. Shakespeare: "Sleeping within my orchard...upon my secure hour thy uncle stole"; Pope, "But seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure..."; there are also examples in Gilbert but I'm blanking on specifics.) Is this a change over time (so that now the dangling modifier is wrong), or is it simply that, as M-W suggests, there's nothing particularly wrong about it but the really funny ones get quoted as injunctions against the entire species? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Over-use of direct quotation

Over half of the words in the first paragraph of the section "Grammar" are enclosed in quotation marks, and most of those appear to be sourced to O'Conner and Kellerman (mislabeled as "O'Conner" in several footnotes). At the risk of being overly cheeky:

Misconception: It is OK to largely reproduce one's source materials, so long as proper sourcing is used. Although opinions vary, it is generally considered poor writing to overuse direct quotation. Similarly, although rules and legal opinion vary, an overuse of another writer's words may run afoul of copyright claims. (On the contrary, ideas and facts are not subject to copyright.) Wikipedia has advice for the use of quotations in encyclopedia articles, though these are not policy guidelines.

Cnilep (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we just disagree on this. I'm not overly concerned about copyright infringement. I've discussed this topic with a lawyer (American lawyer), although not this specific article, I'll admit. A copyright issue is only likely to arise if a significant portion of the work is directly quoted (putting aside graphics or photos). E.g., if this article quoted one entire paragraph of a five paragraph article, we might have a problem. The books referenced that you mention are lengthy, and the quoted material is a fraction of a percent of the total work.

I also understand that overuse of direct quotations can degrade writing. But I prefer direct quotations in many cases because there's no question about what the original author is stating. Since this article concerns controversial material, there are people who might question a paraphrase. Again, I understand your sentiments, and, in general, it can be a valid concern; I just think that it's ok in this article. Of course, I don't own this article, and I'm sure it can be improved. I'm just offering my opinion.

However, thank you for pointing out the issue with O'Connor & Kellerman attribution. That does need to be fixed. And thank you for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I thought that was a rather creative way to open a talk page thread here. :) --Airborne84 (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A (civil) suggestion on the split infinitives discussion

The "Grammar" section's discussion of the (misapplied) Latin source of the specious prohibition against split infinitives concludes with the parenthetical explanation that "in Latin, infinitives are unsplittable words, e.g., "amare, cantare, audire")" [italics added]. The term "unsplittable words" seems at best awkward, and at worst redundant—i.e., aren't all Latin words "unsplittable" in this sense? I understand (and agree with) the point the writer is trying to make here, but isn't there a way of explaining this point that's both clearer and stylistically more polished? I've thought about a few possible alternatives, but I'm not sure any of them is completely satisfactory. (E.g., "Latin infinitives consist of only one word, e.g. [examples]. Because of this grammatical [or linguistic?] structure, they cannot be split in the same sense as an English infinitive can be.) Perhaps a more skilled writer could craft a better way to phrase this point. (And there may be a term other than grammatical or linguistic that's preferable or more appropriate in a technical sense.) --Jackftwist (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

English does not have infinitives — it just emulates their function by throwing "to" in front of the verb. The problem is intrinsic to how poorly conceived English is, because infinitives are *supposed* to call for inflection. Since we refuse to add that inflection, we're stuck with a preposition acting in its place. This results in the potential for some really awkward syntax.

"To boldly go where no one has gone before." - the adverb is splitting the infinitive "to go." This occurs naturally, since English syntax generally calls for adjectives and adverbs to precede the elements they modify. Reordering the syntax to avoid splitting the so-called "infinitive" doesn't make the sentence any less awkward, because then the adverb is going to seem out-of-place.

Instead of having these cyclic debates, I think we need to acknowledge intrinsic flaws within English and reform them. Infinitives *require* inflection. Plain and simple. We need to invent a form of inflection that would be suitable for English verbs. 70.153.112.253 (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New entry

I hate to discourage additions, but I'm not sure about the latest one: "Modifying words near verbs always end in -ly." My biggest concern is that it's not sourced as a common misconception. I think that is a key litmus test for inclusion here.

Thoughts? --Airborne84 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No comments, so I removed it. It might actually work beter if it was narrowed down to the "I feel badly" phrase. But the key issue is that it's not sourced as a widespread misconception. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Stranded prepositions

The current paragraph bothers me. First of all, referencing Grammar Girl? I've had to correct her own grammar on more than one occasion. While she is a generally useful, educational resource, she doesn't possess extensive knowledge of parts of grammar. Secondly, the Winston Churchill quote is absurd. His sentence uses a phrasal verb, where the preposition is considered a part of the verb itself. It's agreed that the prepositional elements of phrasal verbs do not count as stranded prepositions, since they don't serve the same function as a true preposition. This quotation does not belong, because it doesn't establish a valid argument.

The reason why it appears awkward to strand prepositions has to do with the logical syntax of the sentence. If you're indicating a direction / modification between various nouns, then the order calls for the preposition to precede or come between them. When you throw it at the end of the sentence, it's not necessarily clear which nouns are being modified by the preposition, since English doesn't inflect nouns to provide said context.

"This is the hole | that he fell into." - He fell into... what? There is no noun after the preposition. It looks like an awkward run-off sentence.

"This is the hole | into which he fell." - Clearer syntax provides a consistent relationship between the nouns.

70.153.112.253 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your points. Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia doesn't represent truth, it represents verifiability. Mignon Fogarty's works qualify under Wikipedia's policies as reliable sources. Since her view is also representative of other high-quality sources, her citations should not be contentious—IMO anyway.

As far as the Churchill quote, I think that's something that the average Wikipedia reader might be interested in. It's not meant to be a refutation. Perhaps there could be a better transition to that sentence to note that it's just an interesting historical episode on the topic. On the other hand, if other editors think it should be removed, fine. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Churchill quote is probably not by Churchill (there is no evidence that he said it) and the attribution should be removed.[1] You could take this opportunity to remove the whole thing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably apocryphal. It doesn't have to be true to merit inclusion though. It's so well represented in literature, true or false, that it merits (IMO) inclusion in an encyclopedia. However, note b identifies this as probably "invented", and the text doesn't say that he said it—just that it's been said that he said it. We could adjust the text to more clearly identify the saying as apocryphal though.

I wouldn't support removing the entire entry though. This one and the one on split infinitives might be the most prevalent English usage misconceptions in the US and UK. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted formatting

I hate to discourage other editors contributing, but I personally didn't prefer the "new look" to the article (the cell-type formatting). Also, one of the editors who gave a peer review suggested taking the "List of" out of the title—somthing that merits consideration. If that's done, it'll be less of a list and more of an article, and the formatting would be a bit out of place.

Having said that, if a consensus of editors feel that the new formatting is preferable, I won't object.

And I hope I haven't discouraged contributors with my reverts. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Begs the question

I'm not sure that this should be included (the so-called misconception that "beg the question" means "raise the question"). There are two reasons:

1. Unlike most misconceptions on the list, this has not to my knowledge been promoted by any writers on usage (hence there are lots of dubious old textbooks saying not to split the infinitive, but none saying "beg the question" means "raise the question"). Other entries on the list relate to hyperprescriptivism, not to words commonly misused or misspelt.
2. There is an increasing acceptance that "beg the question" in popular speech can and does mean "raise the question"; Merriam-Webster online includes the definition "to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response the quarterback's injury begs the question of who will start in his place"[2]. Soon you may be able to change this to a misconception that "beg the question" does not mean "raise the question", but the consensus is perhaps not there yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair points. I could point to the "verifiability, not truth" policy of Wikipedia (now being hotly debated), but some potential entries on this article could have conflicting, and verifiable, statements. This one is a case in point.

I'll also point (as some added context) to the misconception that "comprise" is synonymous with "composes". So, many people (and about half of the professionally printed works I read) use comprise as in, "the parts comprise the whole," instead of its standard use—"the whole comprises the parts." Nevertheless, because of its widespread misuse, this use of comprise is starting to become more acceptable. It's just not to the level that it would be described as standard usage yet, IMO. Perhaps in 5–10 years it will be though.

What interests me is whether people that use these words/phrases in the "new" sense are doing so on purpose, regardless of "standard usage", or if they are doing so because they don't know the standard definitions? Because I think the latter still rules, on the average (and this seems to be supported by reliable sources), I support retention of this entry.

But, this all points to some grey area for the topic of this thread and for these other potential entries. I propose—like many such questions on Wikipedia—that it be resolved through editorial consensus. If a consensus emerges to remove this entry, I won't object. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nasuea entry

This is an interesting one. I'm not sure what to make of it though. It seems almost as if the misconception is by published writers such as the two noted, which is contradicted by the usage of the masses. The other entries are misconceptions of the masses contradicted by published writers.

I'll leave it since I hate to discourage contributions. I welcome additional thoughts though. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel bad entry

The entry about "I feel bad" versus "I feel badly" seems to contradict itself. It says that "I feel bad" means the same thing as "I am not feeling well," but that would seem to mean "I am not good at feeling things." Snakespeaker (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I tried a rewording. Feel free to adjust if it still seems unclear. Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I feel badly could simply mean that the speaker's fingertips are numb. XOXO, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New entry

The preposition/prepositional phrase entry needs some citations—both to support the passages and to support it as a misconception. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

because is also a conjunction

So should we add it to the third misconception about and, but, & so? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that specifically supports its inclusion, sure. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the only one I remember being taught - and that at an early age when it was probably appropriate. The use of "and" was always mentioned as "most times a sentence starts with 'and' it's a mistake." And I think here, the fact that many "great writers" do start sentences with "and" simply shows that by-and-large they are know what they are doing. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Common?

"Inflammable" means something that cannot burn for example... that's common. I doubt it. Also the stuff about typewriting - never mind the fact that "professionally published books" (whatever that means) don't really have the conept of "a space" or "two spaces," space is dynamic these days, particularly in a well set book, and indeed even in the days of hot-metal was way more subtle than "one or two spaces?" Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC).