A Neo-Grammatical-Errorist Manifesto

[WolfLarsen]

A Neo-Grammatical-Errorist Manifesto
by Wolf Larsen

1) !Goo Gaaaaajaaaa- raaaaooooop!, - ,

2) ,,,//,!ooooooOOOO! PuuuuL-L-LL-L-L-LL!

3) !UuuUUjjob!,, Looooowwwqquu/,-? ??!,/.,

4) !Abstractionism is the yes my of u N de Rwear,, off! Good is sex! Censorship-ism is a garbage-ism!

5)? Invent new WoRds, wOrds worDs! Yes to words new yeS-yes! Slaughter slaughter the grammar & rules traditional yes yes! Due 2 the words whaT the butcher does too the meet! Filet the sentences like butchering an animal 4 slaughter- ! - The, pen. is/ your, knife!

6) !Peanut buTter-iSm now,! !Now-ism now! !Violate - everything - until - grammar - is - no - moreeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

7) ,Corr, eCt graMmatical str-ucturE i/s now again,st the la.Ws of crEativity - creatiVity - creativitY! And down with gravity to !Violators will be e-aten by fluoreScent-cannibaL-woRms on every Tuesday of GREEN & PURPLE years!

8)??? GREEN & PURPLE years ! GREEN & PURPLE years ! & Submarines too! -Too-ism 2! Submarining shall be flippy-floppity-bunny-bunny-salesman-ism tomorrows & yesterday & todays! No mOre yesterdayism !

9)! Happy to the songs of beach blue skyism, and also tomorrowism as well! Evolution & revolution is our alwaysism!

10)/, Catch breath you song sing you?

11) RIP grammar correct structerism and spelling correctism yes RIP to all that do/do do/do do/do! Yes yes yeS yEs yes Yes yes yes to sentences incorrect-ism!!!

12) eat a CENSORED TO COMPLY WITH FORUM RULES For brEakfast every day every, Yum Yum,!

[Darcy88]

Zzzzzz....

http://michaelhyatt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/iStock_000011268589Small1.jpg

[MANICHAEAN]

THE BLACKLIST

A for An. "A hotel." "A heroic man." Before an unaccented aspirate use an. The contrary usage in this country comes of too strongly stressing our aspirates.

Action for Act. "In wrestling, a blow is a reprehensible action." A blow is not an action but an act. An action may consist of many acts.

Admission for Admittance. "The price of admission is one dollar."

Admit for Confess. To admit is to concede something affirmed. An unaccused offender cannot admit his guilt.

Adopt. "He adopted a disguise." One may adopt a child, or an opinion, but a disguise is assumed.

Advisedly for Advertently, Intentionally. "It was done advisedly" should mean that it was done after advice.

Afford. It is not well to say "the fact affords a reasonable presumption"; "the house afforded ample accommodation." The fact supplies a reasonable presumption. The house offered, or gave, ample accommodation.

Afraid. Do not say, "I am afraid it will rain." Say, I fear that it will rain.

Afterwards for Afterward.

Aggravate for Irritate. "He aggravated me by his insolence." To aggravate is to augment the disagreeableness of something already disagreeable, or the badness of something bad. But a person cannot be aggravated, even if disagreeable or bad. Women are singularly prone to misuse of this word.

All of. "He gave all of his property." The words are contradictory: an entire thing cannot be of itself. Omit the preposition.

Alleged. "The alleged murderer." One can allege a murder, but not a murderer; a crime, but not a criminal. A man that is merely suspected of crime would not, in any case, be an alleged criminal, for an allegation is a definite and positive statement. In their tiresome addiction to this use of alleged, the newspapers, though having mainly in mind the danger of libel suits, can urge in further justification the lack of any other single word that exactly expresses their meaning; but the fact that a mud-puddle supplies the shortest route is not a compelling reason for walking through it. One can go around.

Allow for Permit. "I allow you to go." Precision is better attained by saying permit, for allow has other meanings.

Allude to for Mention. What is alluded to is not mentioned, but referred to indirectly. Originally, the word implied a playful, or sportive, reference. That meaning is gone out of it.

And so. And yet. "And so they were married." "And yet a woman." Omit the conjunction.

And which. And who. These forms are incorrect unless the relative pronoun has been used previously in the sentence. "The colt, spirited and strong, and which was unbroken, escaped from the pasture." "John Smith, one of our leading merchants, and who fell from a window yesterday, died this morning." Omit the conjunction.

Antecedents for Personal History. Antecedents are predecessors.

Anticipate for Expect. "I anticipate trouble." To anticipate is to act on an expectation in a way to promote or forestall the event expected.

Anxious for Eager. "I was anxious to go." Anxious should not be followed by an infinitive. Anxiety is contemplative; eagerness, alert for action.

Appreciate for Highly Value. In the sense of value, it means value justly, not highly. In another and preferable sense it means to increase in value.

Approach. "The juror was approached"; that is, overtures were made to him with a view to bribing him. As there is no other single word for it, approach is made to serve, figuratively; and being graphic, it is not altogether objectionable.

Appropriated for Took. "He appropriated his neighbor's horse to his own use." To appropriate is to set apart, as a sum of money, for a special purpose.

Approve of for Approve. There is no sense in making approve an intransitive verb.

Apt for Likely. "One is apt to be mistaken." Apt means facile, felicitous, ready, and the like; but even the dictionary-makers cannot persuade a person of discriminating taste to accept it as synonymous with likely.

Around for About. "The débris of battle lay around them." "The huckster went around, crying his wares." Around carries the concept of circularity.

Article. A good and useful word, but used without meaning by shopkeepers; as, "A good article of vinegar," for a good vinegar.

As for That, or If. "I do not know as he is living." This error is not very common among those who can write at all, but one sometimes sees it in high place.

As—as for So—as. "He is not as good as she." Say, not so good. In affirmative sentences the rule is different: He is as good as she.

As for for As to. "As for me, I am well." Say, as to me.

At Auction for by Auction. "The goods were sold at auction."

At for By. "She was shocked at his conduct." This very common solecism is without excuse.

Attain for Accomplish. "By diligence we attain our purpose." A purpose is accomplished; success is attained.

Authoress. A needless word—as needless as "poetess."

Avocation for Vocation. A vocation is, literally, a calling; that is, a trade or profession. An avocation is something that calls one away from it. If I say that farming is some one's avocation I mean that he practises it, not regularly, but at odd times.

Avoid for Avert. "By displaying a light the skipper avoided a collision." To avoid is to shun; the skipper could have avoided a collision only by getting out of the way.

Avoirdupois for Weight. Mere slang.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That should be "meat," not "meet," Wolf.

As to MANICHEAN's list . . . for the first one, should it be "a" or "an" before a word that starts with an h? People always use "an," but that's never made sense to me, because you use "an," if the following word begins with a vowel sound, which an h definitely is not. But, for a word like "honor," you should use "an," since the h is silent,

[Charles Darnay]

That should be "meat," not "meet," Wolf.

As to MANICHEAN's list . . . for the first one, should it be "a" or "an" before a word that starts with an h? People always use "an," but that's never made sense to me, because you use "an," if the following word begins with a vowel sound, which an h definitely is not. But, for a word like "honor," you should use "an," since the h is silent,

In the "Queen's English" (in Britain) you will commonly see "an" before an "h" - it's really just America, and whatever trickled down into Canada that did away with that.

[Darcy88]

In the "Queen's English" (in Britain) you will commonly see "an" before an "h" - it's really just America, and whatever trickled down into Canada that did away with that.

In Britain its "an hill," "an house?"

[Sancho Panza]

I think that the an before a "h" is bad English. It is understandable in words like hour or heir, but not words like historical, which is the word I most commonly see it with in writing.

[DocHeart]

A Neo-Grammatical-Errorist Manifesto
by Wolf Larsen

1) !Goo Gaaaaajaaaa- raaaaooooop!, - ,

2) ,,,//,!ooooooOOOO! PuuuuL-L-LL-L-L-LL!

3) !UuuUUjjob!,, Looooowwwqquu/,-? ??!,/.,

4) !Abstractionism is the yes my of u N de Rwear,, off! Good is sex! Censorship-ism is a garbage-ism!

5)? Invent new WoRds, wOrds worDs! Yes to words new yeS-yes! Slaughter slaughter the grammar & rules traditional yes yes! Due 2 the words whaT the butcher does too the meet! Filet the sentences like butchering an animal 4 slaughter- ! - The, pen. is/ your, knife!

6) !Peanut buTter-iSm now,! !Now-ism now! !Violate - everything - until - grammar - is - no - moreeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

7) ,Corr, eCt graMmatical str-ucturE i/s now again,st the la.Ws of crEativity - creatiVity - creativitY! And down with gravity to !Violators will be e-aten by fluoreScent-cannibaL-woRms on every Tuesday of GREEN & PURPLE years!

8)??? GREEN & PURPLE years ! GREEN & PURPLE years ! & Submarines too! -Too-ism 2! Submarining shall be flippy-floppity-bunny-bunny-salesman-ism tomorrows & yesterday & todays! No mOre yesterdayism !

9)! Happy to the songs of beach blue skyism, and also tomorrowism as well! Evolution & revolution is our alwaysism!

10)/, Catch breath you song sing you?

11) RIP grammar correct structerism and spelling correctism yes RIP to all that do/do do/do do/do! Yes yes yeS yEs yes Yes yes yes to sentences incorrect-ism!!!

12) eat a CENSORED TO COMPLY WITH FORUM RULES For brEakfast every day every, Yum Yum,!


I want some of what he's drinking.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think that the an before a "h" is bad English. It is understandable in words like hour or heir, but not words like historical, which is the word I most commonly see it with in writing.

:iagree:

Is anyone else overjoyed that this thread has become a discussion of proper grammar? Let's keep it going!

How about using "their" with a singular, like saying, "if a person loses their glasses," rather than, "if a person loses his/her glasses," or some other variant. I had a professor who specialized in grammar say that soon it would be acceptable to use "their" with a singular, as it's being used more and more, and always having to type his/her is so clunky. I've just said **** it, and use their with a singular, unless I'm doing academic writing for a professor's rules I'm not sure of.

And, the above brings me to something else I've always had trouble with, and that's when to use a comma before quotes. Do you ALWAYS use a comma before a quote if the quote is speech? I know you don't if you are giving an example of a word or something, such as if I wanted to say: the word "irregardless" is not accpetable.

[Calidore]

:iagree:

Is anyone else overjoyed that this thread has become a discussion of proper grammar? Let's keep it going!

How about using "their" with a singular, like saying, "if a person loses their glasses," rather than, "if a person loses his/her glasses," or some other variant. I had a professor who specialized in grammar say that soon it would be acceptable to use "their" with a singular, as it's being used more and more, and always having to type his/her is so clunky. I've just said **** it, and use their with a singular, unless I'm doing academic writing for a professor's rules I'm not sure of.

That's probably one of the biggest bugs in English--the lack of a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. Still waiting for the patch. Meantime, "their" is pretty much the commonly accepted workaround.


And, the above brings me to something else I've always had trouble with, and that's when to use a comma before quotes. Do you ALWAYS use a comma before a quote if the quote is speech? I know you don't if you are giving an example of a word or something, such as if I wanted to say: the word "irregardless" is not accpetable.

I think the distinction is, a comma before a quote, not necessarily quotation marks. He said, etc.

[MANICHAEAN]

Backwards for Backward.

Badly for Bad. "I feel badly." "He looks badly." The former sentence implies defective nerves of sensation, the latter, imperfect vision. Use the adjective.

Balance for Remainder. "The balance of my time is given to recreation." In this sense balance is a commercial word, and relates to accounting.

Because for For. "I knew it was night, because it was dark." "He will not go, because he is ill."

Bet for Betted. The verb to bet forms its preterite regularly, as do wet, wed, knit, quit and others that are commonly misconjugated. It seems that we clip our short words more than we do our long.

Body for Trunk. "The body lay here, the head there." The body is the entire physical person (as distinguished from the soul, or mind) and the head is a part of it. As distinguished from head, trunk may include the limbs, but anatomically it is the torso only.

Bogus for Counterfeit, or False. The word is slang; keep it out.

Both. This word is frequently misplaced; as, "A large mob, both of men and women." Say, of both men and women.

Both alike. "They are both alike." Say, they are alike. One of them could not be alike.

Business for Right. "He has no business to go there."

Build for Make. "Build a fire." "Build a canal." Even "build a tunnel" is not unknown.

But. By many writers this word (in the sense of except) is regarded as a preposition, to be followed by the objective case: "All went but him." It is not a preposition and may take either the nominative or objective case, to agree with the subject or the object of the verb. All went but he. The natives killed all but him.

But what. "I did not know but what he was an enemy." Omit what. If condemnation of this locution seem needless bear the matter in mind in your reading and you will soon be of a different opinion.

By for Of. "A man by the name of Brown." Say, of the name. Better than either form is: a man named Brown.

[AuntShecky]

Pronunciation guide? Word origins? Plural forms for nouns, tenses for verbs?

[MANICHAEAN]

Dive in Auntie & lets get back to basics!

[jajdude]

I just want to see the apostrophe used properly, but it's too late. It's been misused for a while now, overused really, put where it doesn't belong. Not sure who to blame for this.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I just want to see the apostrophe used properly, but it's too late. It's been misused for a while now, overused really, put where it doesn't belong. Not sure who to blame for this.

Education systems, students, parents, society . . . all play a part in all grammatical errors.

THE biggest contributor within the last decade, though, is the prolifieration of social websites like Facebook and texting. Texting has already formed a lexicon of it's own, but there's no real excuse for it on FB. People developed the shortcuts on texting so they could message each other faster, which makes sense. But there's no reason to take shortcuts on FB. Adults are just as bad as kids, using "u" instead of "you," "y" instead of "why," not to mention total misuse of punctuation (sometimes a complete lack thereof), not even bothering to use apostrophes, and atrocious spelling, even with the spellchecks that come with most web browsers. People don't care any more, and horrible grammar and spelling is becoming more and more acceptable. Some will argue, what's the big deal? The problem is that we have grammar for a reason, and the less of it you use, the less intelligible you become, but I'm not telling anyone here anything they don't already know.

[Jack of Hearts]

Pure **** as usual, an abuse of the inherently human right to self expression- if you're going to say something, at least try to make it a little intelligent or slightly interesting, etc, etc. Another wolf dropping but this reader is just too bored to be more emphatic in his response. It's the atmosphere here these days- it's too common, ever since Adalwulf fingerpainted these boards with his own feces, spanked liberalism and called it art.






J



EDIT: Be this reader's valentine, Adalwulf?

[drago]

You aren't doing anything revolutionary. This has been done before.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It seems Wolf's literary interests are only the tip of the iceberg.

Check this out. (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rRPxweofhUA)

For more enlightenment, go here (http://wolflarsenpresident.org/).

It also looks like you can also get 12 different books written by Wolf Larsen on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&ie=UTF8&field-author=Wolf%20Larsen).

I'm surprised these forums are even worth his time. He's quite the success!

[OrphanPip]

Wow, I read the preview of the Travel Around the World one... and man it makes me question whether or not Stephanie Meyers is really as bad as I think she is. That **** is painful to read.

[Darcy88]

It seems Wolf's literary interests are only the tip of the iceberg.

Check this out. (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rRPxweofhUA)

For more enlightenment, go here (http://wolflarsenpresident.org/).

It also looks like you can also get 12 different books written by Wolf Larsen on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&ie=UTF8&field-author=Wolf%20Larsen).

I'm surprised these forums are even worth his time. He's quite the success!

I like Wolf's politics but some of the items in his political manifesto are just hilarious. The word "bourgeoisie" pops up. As a poet Wolf fancies himself Rimbaud and as a politician Lenin. He does not realize that they lived and died well over a century ago and that all this is nothing earth-shattering, nothing new.

I also just read the preview for his novel titled Ten Thousand Penises in Your Ear. Its like a bad drug trip, it actually forces that feeling upon you. I don't know how he even writes this stuff. Perhaps while experiencing a bad drug trip.

[cafolini]

I'm little concerned with gramatical errors because they are easy to fix where they need to be fixed. But stupid thinking is of concern, because no person ever learned stupid thinking by making lots of grammatical mistakes.

[MarkBastable]

In the "Queen's English" (in Britain) you will commonly see "an" before an "h" - it's really just America, and whatever trickled down into Canada that did away with that.

It's a kind of hangover from the time when these words arrived from French, and the h was silent.

In Modern English, there's absolutely no reason at all to say 'an historic event' or 'an hotel room' - and, if you want my opinion, it's a small-minded pretension to do so, usually perpetrated by the sort of people who insist that a preposition is something that it is ungrammatical to end a sentence with.

Not that any of them can ever say why that's the case.

[jajdude]

"Texting has already formed a lexicon of it's own"

See, you did it too. A typo or have they got to you too?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Actually, it's the autocorrect. It doesn't think "its" is a word, and sometimes I forget to correct . . . the autocorrect. :lol:

[begirl001]

Dive in Auntie & lets get back to basics!



http://www.herfree.com/avatar2.jpg

[Bewlay Brother]

You know... that Pricks cocks and mother****ers book... is kind of... funny. I mean, it is absolute filth and terrible, but, it is a little humorous to read. I couldn't imagine reading the entire book, but if you read like 10 pages it is okay.

[Darcy88]

You know... that Pricks cocks and mother****ers book... is kind of... funny. I mean, it is absolute filth and terrible, but, it is a little humorous to read. I couldn't imagine reading the entire book, but if you read like 10 pages it is okay.

Same with his book Ten Thousand Penises in Your Ear. Its actually entertaining in a twisted yet genuine way. Couldn't imagine reading the whole thing though.

[smerdyakov]

I read abit of that New York Novel (i'm not gonna repeat the title) and while the actual style of the writing is alright in parts (short punchy sentences - Bukowksi style) the actual content is pure drivel. Not even amusing, just pure self applauding drivel!

[Bewlay Brother]

I read abit of that New York Novel (i'm not gonna repeat the title) and while the actual style of the writing is alright in parts (short punchy sentences - Bukowksi style) the actual content is pure drivel. Not even amusing, just pure self applauding drivel!

If you can't even repeat the title then you are way too much of a coward to read the works of Wolf Larsen! : )

His sobering realism is too much for you!

[Calidore]

1) !Goo Gaaaaajaaaa- raaaaooooop!, - ,

2) ,,,//,!ooooooOOOO! PuuuuL-L-LL-L-L-LL!

3) !UuuUUjjob!,, Looooowwwqquu/,-? ??!,/.,






His sobering realism is too much for you!

?????

[smerdyakov]

His sobering realism is too much for you!

sobering realism? pull the other one, mate.

If you want to read someone who can actually write what Wolf Larsen so desperately wants to write, try Bukowski or Miller.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

BB was being sarcastic.

[Waldo]

Am I the only one reading this as both a figurative and literal rape of language and rhetoric? In which I can slightly understand it...

[Jack of Hearts]

Hey, there's Waldo! There he is, right there!








J

[prob]

“a” or “an” ? I see your doubts about linguistic problems are as thick as mine, but I’ve been reading English for just one year. That means either English is not so simple as it seems or I am a genius.
I think the first one is right, ma the second one is even possible.
(obviously I’m joking)

Does someone think the style that you are referring is old-fashioned even by greater writers than Wolf Larsen? Maybe yes, it is. It’s a pity, isn’t it?