Yesterday morning, Luke told me, "I play this Nintendo game good." I said, "No. You play it well. Well is an adverb, adverbs modify verbs, and to play is a verb. Good (in this instance) is an adjective. Adjectives modify nouns." After I realized (again) that I sounded like Charlie Brown's teacher to him, he looked at me and asked, "Why aren't they called adnouns? Shouldn't adjectives modify jectives?" He totally missed the point.
The majority of my friends, acquaintances, blog reader(s), and healthcare providers are well-aware that I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Hell, spelling ability was one of the top five reasons I married my husband or even dated him in the first place. And I'm proud to say that both of my children know the difference between "your" and "you're" and the difference between "its" and "it's," which is a lot more than I can say for most adults I know. I have convinced my family that the only thing worse than misplacing my keys is misplacing a modifier. They pretend to know what a gerund is so as not to upset my fragile psyche. And they know all-too-well that dangling a participle in front of me is an open invitation for my unbridled wrath to rain down upon them.
I don't care what you say, as long as you say it correctly. If someone were to write me a note that says, "go to hell bitch." I would return it to them with red marks showing that the word "go" should be capitalized, the word "hell" needs a comma after it, and the word "bitch" needs a capital "B" (because it refers to Me). I might also suggest that the statement end with an exclamation mark instead of a period.
Now, I don't pretend or profess to be the world's greatest expert on the English language. (Well, sometimes I do pretend to be.) I only got a bachelor's degree in English. It's not as if I did something crazy like get a Ph.D. in grammar:
"Oh, you have a Ph.D.? So you're a 'doctor.' Doctor of what, may I ask?"
"Thanks for asking. I have a Ph.D. in English grammar. I'm a grammar doctor. Can I edit something for you?"
I believe my linguistic superiority, whether it is real or imagined, can be somewhat off-putting to anyone who wants to speak in my presence. I wonder if they bite their tongues lest I mentally edit each word they utter. This, of course, works to my advantage because (1) I don't have to listen to other people talk and (2) I get to talk more. And let's face it; wouldn't most of you rather listen to me?
Because I don't trust my children's teachers, I take advantage of every opportunity to train my kids to respect, revere, and regularly employ basic grammar rules. If any other children (or adults for that matter) are within earshot, all the better for them. One of my biggest challenges over the past few years has been drilling it into the kids' heads that "me" cannot be the subject of a standard sentence. Here are some examples:
Luke: "Me and him were making up jokes about our nuts."
Me: "Me was doing what? . . . Him was doing what?"
Luke: "Making up jokes about our nuts."
Me: "You should say, 'He and I were making up jokes about our nuts.'"
Katy: "Me and Lily and Maddie are so hot for Brance." (Their real names, by the way.)
Me: "Me is so hot for whom?"
Katy: "I don't know whom you're hot for, Mom, but we're hot for Brance."
Likewise, "I" cannot be the object of a sentence:
Katy: "Take a picture of Brooke and I."
Me: "Take a picture of I?"
Katy: "No, she and I."
Me: "Take a picture of she and take a picture of I?"
Katy: "No, of me and Brooke."
Me: "Thank you."
As I have stated before, any so-called errors I may have made (or may make) in any blog posts are actually intentional examples of the poetic license I am entitled to by virtue of my obvious genius in this unpopular and endangered arena.
I know what you're thinking:
(1) How pathetic is she that this is her only talent?
(2) Why must she try to make herself feel important by mocking and looking down on those less grammatically fortunate?
(3) Why does she abuse her children this way?
The answers:
(1) I have other talents that I am not as proud of,
(2) Therefore, I need to boost my self-esteem at the expense of others, and
(3) My kids will make me look good later when I can tell people they have Ph.D.s.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Verbal Abuse (New & Improved)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am never, ever writing anything to you again!
That's what I was afraid of. Or, should I say, that's the thing of which I was afraid. Please rethink your decision, Courtney. You know that I don't hold others' weaknesses against them. Sure, I may point them out if need be, but that's all for their own good and, consequently, for the good of all humankind. Like I have said before, I know that people love me in spite of my single personality flaw, so who am I to deny other flawed people the pleasure of interacting with me? Think about it, WWJD? (What Would Jill Do?)
you are, of course, correct to demand precision and accuracy in spoken and written language. i’ve mentioned before how i alienate strangers and friends alike by correcting them, but i can’t help it, and i don’t apologize for it. hearing solecisms like “between you and I” makes me want to SCREAM… and so i do. i take careless usage in my presence as a personal affront. here are some more peeves that i haven’t included before: saying data for datum. “data” is plural. it’s correct to say “these data are..” or “these data show…” in a similar vein, dumbasses often use criteria for criterion- as i recently heard obama say. his quote, in “defending” tim geithner was “if my only criteria for qualification was that you’d never made a mistake, then nobody would be eligible”. see? i knew he was a fuckin dope! and that was BEFORE he tried to walk into the White House through a window instead of the door (to which i thought, A)did katie couric lead with that story? and B)since he's the Messiah, why didn't he just dematerialize right through the window?).
attention and care must be taken when speaking and writing, and a fundamental knowledge of the rules is imperative, or else meanings will begin to blur. and when words cease to carry their proper meaning we’re left with nonsensical gibberish (or as obama calls it, his stimulus plan).
but there can be too much of a good thing. people begin applying specific rules generally, and that leads to all sorts of mess.
recently, some “newspaper” in new york ran a piece related to this topic. i don’t read that paper, but i did find a link to this article on the website of a certain smoking hot blonde with big tits. its writer opines on the topic of the split infinitive, and interestingly enough, there are roots in Texas law:
"Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.
Though the ungrammaticality of split verbs is an urban legend, it found its way into The Texas Law Review Manual on Style, which is the arbiter of usage for many law review journals. James Lindgren, a critic of the manual, has found that many lawyers have 'internalized the bogus rule so that they actually believe that a split verb should be avoided,' adding, 'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers has succeeded so well that many can no longer distinguish alien speech from native speech.'" the first quote i agree with from that rag since they said that al gore is lying about global warming.
Hilarious!
Post a Comment