Why correct grammar is so important

[Balrog]

A little humor for the day:

On his 74th birthday, a man got a gift certificate from his wife. The certificate paid for a visit to a medicine man living on a nearby reservation who was rumored to have a wonderful cure for erectile dysfunction!

After being persuaded, he drove to the reservation, handed his ticket to the medicine man, and wondered what he was in for. The old man handed a potion to him, and with a grip on his shoulder warned, 'This is a powerful medicine. You take only a teaspoonful, and then say '1-2-3.' When you do, you will become more manly than you have ever been in your life, and you can perform as long as you want."

The man was encouraged.

As he walked away, he turned and asked, "How do I stop the medicine from working?"

"Your partner must say '1-2-3-4,'" he responded, "but when she does, the medicine will not work again until the next full moon."

He was very eager to see if it worked so he went home, showered, shaved, took a spoonful of the medicine, and then invited his wife to join him in the bedroom.

When she came in, he took off his clothes and said, "1-2-3!"
Immediately, he was the manliest of men.

His wife was excited and began throwing off her clothes, and then she asked, "What was the 1-2-3 for?"

And that, boys and girls, is why we should never end our sentences with a preposition, because we could end up with a dangling participle.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why correct grammar is so important

When I was a waiter, a guy said, "I don't want no sugar." I put a lot of sugar into his coffee.

 

[Paul_D]

In a works canteen once I was asked "Don't you not want no peas?".

That was over 10 years ago and I still can't wrap my head around that one.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In a works canteen once I was asked "Don't you not want no peas?".

That was over 10 years ago and I still can't wrap my head around that one.

 

[Swagmaster2993]

I helped my uncle jack off a donkey.
I helped my Uncle Jack off a donkey.

Capital letters. What would the world be without them?

 

[skribs]

That's just like the difference between:
"Our party is going to have strippers, Stalin, and Hitler"
"Our party is going to have strippers, Stalin and Hitler."

The ol' Oxford Comma completely changes that one.

 

[Paul_D]

I helped my uncle jack off a donkey.
I helped my Uncle Jack off a donkey.

Capital letters. What would the world be without them?

Covered in donkey semen by the sound of it

 

[Steve]

The Oxford comma can also create ambiguity.

"I walked with my dog, Frank, and Bob."

Do I mean my dog named Frank, or am I talking about Frank, Bob and also a dog?

Not related to the Oxford comma, but grammar related. I like this example I heard a long time ago:

“A woman, without her man, is nothing.”

“A woman: without her, man is nothing.”

 

[Razznik]

I helped my uncle jack off a donkey.
I helped my Uncle Jack off a donkey.

Capital letters. What would the world be without them?

XD

 

[isshinryuronin]

“A woman, without her man, is nothing.”
“A woman: without her, man is nothing.”

This thread has brightened up my morning. Not to turn serious, but here we see how the change in tempo in speaking the same series of words gives a different outcome in meaning. Now consider how a change in tempo executing the same series of MA techniques may affect the outcome in the effects of the attack......the difference in 1-2---3 and 1---2-3, or 1-2-3.

1-2-3 ??? Uh, oh. I'm suddenly feeling manly! Got to sign off now.

 

[Buka]

For sure grammar is one of the most important parts if you tried to talk English at a good level.

Welcome to Martial Talk, ATField.

 

[dvcochran]

The Oxford comma can also create ambiguity.

"I walked with my dog, Frank, and Bob."

Do I mean my dog named Frank, or am I talking about Frank, Bob and also a dog?

Not related to the Oxford comma, but grammar related. I like this example I heard a long time ago:

“A woman, without her man, is nothing.”

“A woman: without her, man is nothing.”

The first sentence would imply three separate subjects since dog is not 'dog's' (no plurality) and Frank and Bob are proper nouns.

Comma placement is everything on the last two; not the use of a comma itself.

 

[Steve]

The first sentence would imply three separate subjects since dog is not 'dog's' (no plurality) and Frank and Bob are proper nouns.

that's one way to read it. Another is that the dog is named Frank.

 

[dvcochran]

that's one way to read it. Another is that the dog is named Frank.

Using correct grammar and plurality that would be incorrect. Had it said 'dog's' it would be correct. Else why would there be two proper names Or the comma was in the wrong place. Had it been written: "I walked with my dog Frank, and Bob." your comment would be correct.
I do a lot of contract law. This is the kind of stuff/crap you have to watch for carefully. Hence the old saying "watch out for the shall's and may's. Can cost you big time.

 

[Steve]

Using correct grammar and plurality that would be incorrect. Had it said 'dog's' it would be correct. Else why would there be two proper names Or the comma was in the wrong place. Had it been written: "I walked with my dog Frank, and Bob." your comment would be correct.
I do a lot of contract law. This is the kind of stuff/crap you have to watch for carefully. Hence the old saying "watch out for the shall's and may's. Can cost you big time.

How someone can so confidently post something so incorrect is truly astounding. You are embarrassing yourself.

"I walked with my dog Frank, and Bob," is not correct grammar. "I walked with my dog, Frank, and Bob," is correct and can mean either the dog and Bob and Frank, or the dog named Frank and also Bob. The point is that there are two reasonable ways to interpret the sentence.

 

[dvcochran]

How someone can so confidently post something so incorrect is truly astounding. You are embarrassing yourself.

"I walked with my dog Frank, and Bob," is not correct grammar. "I walked with my dog, Frank, and Bob," is correct and can mean either the dog and Bob and Frank, or the dog named Frank and also Bob. The point is that there are two reasonable ways to interpret the sentence.

Your second sentence (original format) is lazy, vague, and inaccurate English. If you ever dealt with contract documents or technical papers you would understand this. But...

 

[Steve]

Your second sentence (original format) is lazy, vague, and inaccurate English. If you ever dealt with contract documents or technical papers you would understand this. But...

Lol. It's English. If my lawyer drafted a contract that had obvious grammatical errors in it, I'd find a new lawyer.

 

[dvcochran]

Lol. It's English. If my lawyer drafted a contract that had obvious grammatical errors in it, I'd find a new lawyer.

I get a sense you would not be able to understand the document.
You have argued an incorrect sentence for a large portion of this thread.

 

[Steve]

I get a sense you would not be able to understand the document.
You have argued an incorrect sentence for a large portion of this thread.

I'd show you that you're wrong, but you're so confidently ignorant you wouldn't believe any source I provide. I'm genuinely shocked that you're choosing this hill to die on. This reminds me of the time a car salesman told you what a great deal he gave you and you believed him.

 

[dvcochran]

I'd show you that you're wrong, but you're so confidently ignorant you wouldn't believe any source I provide. I'm genuinely shocked that you're choosing this hill to die on. This reminds me of the time a car salesman told you what a great deal he gave you and you believed him.

Keep trying. That was a swing and a miss.