Who distastes the use of bad grammar?

Bless you.

Greatest thing I've read today. Well done.

Ok, so since this thread doesn't actually have a point, and will probably die a slow and uneventful death, I'm gonna turn it into yet another game. I will write two sentences: one of which is grammatically correct, one of which is not. The next person to reply has to identify which sentence is incorrect, and then give two more sentences. If you want to try something more complex, you can do two whole paragraphs, but please make sure there is only one mistake and that the solution can be logically determined.



1. He had laid the book on the desk.

2. He had lain the book on the desk.

1 is correct >>4.

1. I had too many things to do that day.

2. I had to many things to do that day.

>>5 #1 is correct.

Who might you be?
Whom might you be?

>>6 #2 is correct.

Midterms are upon us, and are causing headaches everywhere.

Midterms are upon us and are causing headaches everywhere.

>>7 #1 is correct.
1. Its been too long!
2. It's been too long!

>>8 #2 is correct, and that's incidentally one of my pet peeves when it comes to grammar xD

>>1 *sobs* You have no idea how much my eyes bleed when I force them to read through sentences containing the word "alot", thank you for this posttt

1. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? He would chuck, he would, as much as he could, and chuck as much wood as a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

2. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? He would chuck, he would, as much as he could, and chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

>>9 #2 is correct

1. I have money.

2. I has money.

>>10 #1 is correct (it really wasn't that difficult lol.)

1. My house has a game room, complete with ping-pong and billiards; a pool, with a bathroom and storage room; and a kitchen, with stainless steel appliances.

2. My house has a game room, complete with ping-pong and billiards, a pool, with a bathroom and storage room, and a kitchen, with stainless steel appliances.

>>9 To be honest, both of those include run on sentences. Shame on you.


>>11 Both are incorrect. Shame on you as well.

1. My house has a game room complete with ping-pong and billiards, a pool with a bathroom and storage room, and a kitchen with stainless steel appliances.

2. My house has: a game room, complete with ping-pong and billiards; a pool, with a bathroom and storage room; and a kitchen, with stainless steel appliances.

But I thought semi-colons could be used in place of a comma where the list was long and included commas? Well, RIP my English skills.

I'd have to guess if I were going to say which was correct for yours >>12.

>>13 You're right; semicolons can be used in place of commas in lists where there are too many commas for easy comprehension. It wasn't the semicolons that got you, it was the extraneous commas. "Complete with ping-pong and billiards," is not a complete sentence, so there should not be a comma after room. By the same rule, kitchen should not have a comma after it.

There were no test sentences in the last post so I will restart.

1. I did well on the test yesterday.

2. I did good on the test yesterday.

>>15 #1 is probably correct. (I could be a real stickler and say they're both correct, just sentences with different meanings, but I'm in a good mood.)

1. The rat scurried back from whence he came.

2. And the rat scurried back whence he came.

>>16 They both sound right to me, Argh. I choose to not decide.

>>16 #1 is correct. >>17 'Whence' means 'from what place or source' so saying 'from whence' is 'from from what place or source'. It doesn't make sense.

1. The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt.

2. The rat, the cat, and the dog chased, killed, and ate the malt.

(If you'd like the link to the article that shows one of the two is the correct one, I'll gladly post it later.)

>>18 no. 2

>>16 both are incorrect.
1. From whence
2. Starting with and.

1. I seen it with my own two eyes.
2. I saw it with my own two eyes.

>>16 is fine >>19. Quote, "There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but or so. In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions." Unquote.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction

Also, you're wrong about my sentence as well. >>18 is #1.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/49238/7-sentences-sound-crazy-are-still-grammatical

>>19 #2 is correct.

1. In Alberta, Canada, because it is so far north, it snows a lot in the winter.

2. In Alberta Canada, because it is so far north, it snows a lot in the winter.

>>19 Just so you know, many teachers in elementary school teach students that starting a sentence with "and" is grammatically incorrect. They do this to prevent kids who don't have a good grasp of how subordinate clauses work from making run-on sentences. Later in their schooling, their teachers are basically supposed to make kids unlearn this rule and learn the actual grammar behind it. This doesn't always happen. And if you think this is crazy and kind of a bad idea, welcome to the American education system.
(Also, I intentionally started the correct sentence with a conjunction just to catch someone. Unfortunately, Fuji took away the joy of correcting them. Yes, I'm an ass.)

>>20 I'd actually call both of those incorrect. I'd say that you've misplaced the modifier in the sentence. If you had put the modifier in parentheses and called it an aside, I'd be good with it, but those sentences do not read well as is.

1. Because Alberta, Canada is so far North, it snows a lot in the winter.

2. Because Alberta, Canada is so far north, it snows a lot in the winter.

(Extra points if you don't use Google for this one.)

>>21 #2 is correct, because we're not referring to North as a proper noun (general location), but merely as a direction.

I can't think of a new one... >~<

I actually feel bad because of all the times I've used 'alot' instead of 'a lot'.

>>20 on >>18 Commas, with the possible exception of the Oxford comma, are absolutely required when listing 3 or more ideas. (I.e. "I like eating puppies and babies" as opposed to "I like eating, puppies, and babies.")

1. I have less pencils than Henry.
2. I have fewer pencils than Henry.

>>24 #2 is correct.

1. I drive an old, green car.
2. I drive a green, old car.

(Some might argue both are correct. If so, you're a pedantic ass. I like that. Either way, one is more preferred.)

>>24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_embedding

If this is still wrong, then never having formally learned English grammar is quite unfortunate for me. >>25 While I believe both are correct (quote, "Adjectives usually come in this order [emphasis mine]" unquote; http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/order-adjectives), #1 is more preferred.

>I'm low-key scared of posting because I can't think of one that'll be incorrect or wrong.

>>26 don't worry, I'll help.

#1 what is I gonna do?
#2 what am I going to do?

You should put a comma before the word 'and' if you're putting more than one thing in a sentence. For example:

1. For breakfast I had eggs, bacon, toast and orange juice.
2. For breakfast I had eggs, bacon, toast, and orange juice.

Number 1 implies that you had the orange juice on the toast rather than 2 implying that you had orange juice WITH the toast.

Technically both are correct >>28 . #2 is called the Oxford Comma and you people who don't use it are terrible people. >>28 both sentences make sense with or without the Oxford Comma. a better example would be:

1. I like my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

2. I like my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty.

The Oxford Comma is necessary, in my humble but correct opinion (you're free to be wrong if you'd like), because it helps to clarify what the sentence means. #1 can either have the same meaning as #2, or it can mean, "I like my parents, who are Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty". The comma is necessary to clarify for us.

If only this site had an editing function. First sentence: technically they mean the same thing. Fourth sentence: A not a.

>>29 #2 is correct. Also, people who insist on ALWAYS including the Oxford Comma are terrible people who care more about semantics and being correct than the actual purpose of language, which is to communicate information. Consider the following sentence:

The flag was red, white and blue.

This sentence doesn't require the Oxford comma because the meaning of the sentence can't be misinterpreted from the exclusion of the Oxford comma. And with commas, if you dont need them, don't use them. This just makes writing more succinct, more clear, and lessens extraneous data. So usage of the Oxford comma should be determined on a case by case basis.

Oh shit, forgot to include my own sentences.

1. The soothing music, part of the scene's effect, effects a sanguine effect upon the audience.

2. The soothing music, part of the scene's effect, affects a sanguine effect upon the audience.

3. The soothing music, part of the scene's affect, affects a sanguine effect upon the audience.

4. The soothing music, part of the scene's effect, affects a sanguine affect upon the audience.


Choose which sentence is correct.

>>32 #2 sounds right to me, but I could be wrong.

And... I can't really think of sentences, forgive me. :')

>>33 Eh, don't worry about thinking of more sentences yet. #2 is not the correct answer. xD

>>34 Goddammit xD #1 it is, then.

>>32
Seems redundant to me.

>>36 It's not really redundant, just a sentence using some very obscure meanings of relatively common words.

I like how everybody skipped mine, >>27. Must've been too difficult.

>>39 Yep. Definitely too difficult.