Best of 2012: 5 Stupid Grammar Myths (and Why You Should Follow Them at Work)

by , December 24, 2012 — 60 Comments
5 Stupid Grammar Myths

2012 is coming to a wrap! To say good-bye to one seriously great year, we’re counting down to New Year’s with the top 12 articles of 2012. You loved them the first time, so here they are again—we hope you enjoy! 

 

Ever been chided for doing something you know isn’t wrong? Your brother-in-law insists that guacamole is made only with lemon—never lime—and that you’ve ruined it with your tiny green citrus. His mama taught him to make it with lemon, and he doesn’t care how much you cite Alton Brown.

The same goes when you’re writing at work. Although modern grammarians and reference books firmly assert that all five of the “rules” I’m going to give you are baseless, they’ve been taught as law in many schools—especially to people old enough to be your boss.

So read up. Be informed. Know they are myths—and follow them in your writing at work anyway. Believe me, it makes life easier.

 

1. “Data” Can Only Be Plural

In Latin, “data” is the plural of “datum.” Therefore, some people insist that “data” can only be plural in English (“the data are here,” not “the data is here”). Now, these same people would never ask you to send them the meeting “agendum,” even though the “agenda/agendum” pair is just like “data/datum.” And that’s because English is a rogue and has no problem giving a makeover to words it takes from other languages.

Nevertheless, you’re safest keeping “data” plural. If it sounds weird to you, use a different word, such as “information” or “results.”

Don’t: This quarter’s data is going to get us fired.

Do: This quarter’s results are going to get us fired.

 

2. Never Split an Infinitive

You split an infinitive when you put an adverb between “to” and a verb—for example, “to boldly go.”

The rule against splitting infinitives was made up by a few fellows in the mid-1800s, and even they weren’t that adamant about it. They generally thought it was better to avoid splitting infinitives, but they didn’t say that splitting was the unforgivable sin that some people seem to think it is today.

Even though splitting isn’t wrong, moving the adverb rarely changes the meaning of your sentence. Just do it.

Don’t: She wanted to loudly tell her boss to pound sand.

Do: She wanted to tell her boss loudly to pound sand.

 

3. Don’t End a Sentence With a Preposition

This “rule” was made up in 1672 by John Dryden—a writer so famous in his time that some refer to the years of his prime as the Age of Dryden. His influence assured that the rule made it into schoolbooks, and it’s been widely taught ever since. Nevertheless, there’s no logical basis for the rule, and modern language experts have fought back in force.

The only reason you’ll find in most current language books for avoiding an ending preposition is to save you from offending someone who still thinks it’s wrong. But, in the workplace, that’s actually not a bad reason.

Don’t: Now that’s something I hadn’t thought of.

Do: Now that’s something I hadn’t considered.

 

4. “Slow” is Never an Adverb

Fussbudgets will tell you that signs shouldn’t say “drive slow”—they should say “drive slowly.” The bearers of this news ignore the existence of flat adverbs (those that don’t end in -ly). Even William Strunk Jr., of Elements of Style fame, used them: Co-author E.B. White reported that Strunk often told students, “If you don’t know how to pronounce a word, say it loud.”

Still, the belief that flat adverbs are wrong is so widespread, it’s safer to use the non-flat adverb form.

Don’t: He talks so loud we can hear him three cubes down.

Do: He talks so loudly we can hear him three cubes down.

 

5. Only Food is Done; Projects are Finished

You’ve probably been chided by someone at the dinner table for saying you’re “done” instead of “finished,” but that aunt or grandfather was holding on to a belief that doesn’t make any sense. This “rule” surfaced in the early 1900s, but the style guide that started it gave no reason. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage speculates that the advice was based on bias against the usage’s “Irish, Scots, and U.S.” origin.

You can argue the point with Aunt Millie, but at work, there’s no harm in sticking with “finished.”

Don’t: I’m done with this project.

Do: I’m finished with this project.

 

In the workplace, it’s not always about what’s right and wrong—it’s about how you play the game. And yes, that includes grammar.

 

Photo of books courtesy of Shutterstock.

About the Author

Mignon Fogarty is better known online as Grammar Girl and is the author of eight books on language, including the new book 101 Troublesome Words You’ll Master in No Time.

60 comments
Rafael
Rafael

One thing I love about hard copy books is their permanence...I doubt otherwise I would be able to share something I've turned to over and over again as the years have passed since I first received my Random House unabridged dictionary back in the late 60s, and that is its "usage" paragraph after the definition of "split infinitive." 

After some finger wagging at "traditionalists', purists', and other schoolmarmish stylists' objections" it states that in the sentence "To really get to know someone you have to have lived with him" placing "really" anywhere else in the sentence makes for awkward phrasing.

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith

@Rafael I once came across this sentence :

'We try to deliberately stop arguing in front of the children.'

Move the Adverb & the sentence no longer means what it wants to mean, viz. that it is the stopping that's deliberate & not the trying or the arguing.

TheFont
TheFont

Sounds like the sloppy thinking of someone who doesn’t understand that you *get* to know a person *while* living with him. *Having lived* with him might help with the knowing, but it doesn’t help with the getting to know.

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith

Of course your etymology is correct. I must say that I have however never heard the word 'agendum' used in practice & thus if 'data' as  sing, is to be accepted as justified by usage, like any number of technically incorrect forms down the ages (e.g. 'assets' which was originally sing., from early modern French 'assetz`) then 'agendum' is not.

Badger
Badger

Your citation of agenda in the case of data is not quite correct. An agendum is a single item up for discussion; a meeting's agenda is a list of those items. A list of agendums, if you will :)

Words are defined by usage, and I think the use of data as a singular form is so established that it cannot reasonably be challenged as incorrect. There's something euphonic to me about hearing "these data show..." instead of "this data shows..." but both forms are correct, I'd say, and unambigous.

Bapman
Bapman

@Badger sorry but your version of "agenda vs agendum" does not cut the mustard.  Agenda is a plural in latin and english when referring to more than one agendum, "agendums" is a word you made up.  And a list of more than one agendum, is a list. It is one list.  The singular item is the list, it is a list of agenda.   The writer's point is entirely correct and valid.

MarianM
MarianM

"coming to a wrap"?  What kind of English is that?

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith like.author.displayName 1 Like

The use of 'data' as a singular is defensible by labelling it a 'collective' noun. Also the Latin singular, 'datum', is rare in English - 'one of our data' or even 'an item of data' seems more idiomatic to me.

Huwever other neuter plurals such as 'criteria', 'phenomena', & most cryingly 'media' cannot be so defended as they've got singulars which are in current use (As McLuhan famously wrote, 'the medium is the message'.)

LenW
LenW

@chrisnsmith The one that *really* gets me, that I find severiously (conflation of severe + seriously, a neologism if I may), is when people say 'a bacteria'. They should say a bacterium. What's keeping me awake at this hour of the morning is a cup of real coffee, but certainly not one I bought at a cafeterium.

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith

@LenW @chrisnsmith I complained to a newspaper about 'a bacteria' & I found in the next edition they had amended it to a 'virus'. This was now good grammar ; but a friend who knows about these things said it was bad science!

James
James like.author.displayName 1 Like

Rule 4: 'Co-author E.B. White reported that Strunk often told students, “If you don’t know how to pronounce a word, say it loud'.

 

I would suggest that 'loud' in this context isn't a flat adverb but an adjective in apposition to 'it'. You wouldn't say, 'he beat him blackly and bluely', for example.

MarianM
MarianM

I'm done instead of I've finished is an Americanism.

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith

@MarianM The problem with deciding what are or are not Americanisms is that whilst most of us can recognize recent importations into BritE, the process has in fact been continuous since the talkies began long long ago & what were Americanisms, e.g. 'a chip on one's shoulder', are now sometimes so well established east ot the pond that often we don't recognize them as such. I am a Yorkshireman born & bred - to me e.g. 'Have you done talking?' seems natural & normal. Of course it may've been an Americanism years ago.

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith

@MarianM I guess the expats on the Costa Blanca will have cable TV or internet & that this will tend to Amereicanize their language - I don't know if you've noticed particularly but media people tend to seize on Americanisms before the rest of us & thus diffuse them. I live in Germany & get most of my 'culture' in German (or German English!) so I suppose this doesn't affect me quite so much.

MarianM
MarianM

@chrisnsmith @MarianM I haven't lived in England since 1995 and I have been in Spain since 2008 on the Costa Blanca where there are a lot of English people.  The English they speak is not the same English I was used to hearing when I left England.  It definitely has more Americanisms in it now.  I still speak the English of 1995.  The funny thing is that in the meantime I was living in California.  But, I was always aware of my English and their English.  I come back over here and find that "my" English, i.e. the English I was used to, has changed while I was away!

Rosin France
Rosin France

And what about ' could I get a coffee please' instead of ' could I have a coffee please ' ??

razdemaree
razdemaree

@Rosin France My pedantic English master would not allow the use of the verb "to get".

He maintained that there is always a more appropriate and precise verb. I continue to follow his guidance.

TheFont
TheFont

@razdemaree @Rosin France Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Can you help me improve on that. I can’t get my head round it...

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith

@TheFont @razdemaree I imagine we'd have to know the original Hebrew to comprehend the distinction between the words translated as 'wisdom' & 'understanding'. Seems like the same Thing to me.

razdemaree
razdemaree

@TheFont @razdemaree 

Wisdom is the principle thing, therefore seek wisdom and with all thy seeking achieve understanding.

No. I can't get my head round this one. Created in the modern idiom - should probably be left alone:-)



MarianM
MarianM

@razdemaree @Rosin France If you want to learn English you have to learn the verb "to get" because, like it or not, it is used all the time.

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith

@Rosin France I suspect that this use of 'get' comes from the German (ich krige ein Kaffee) just as 'I#ll take the steak' does.

MarianM
MarianM

 @Rosin France The two phrases do not mean the same thing.  The first one - you make your own.  The second one - it is made for you.

TheFont
TheFont

@MarianM @Rosin France I think that was Rosin’s point. Of course, it’s a matter of perspective. The customer might have been sent to get a coffee, but if he uses ‘get’ when ordering it the barista might say “No, you wait here, Sir. I'll get it for you.”

Jason
Jason

Your rules 2 and 3 are more myths to be heaped on the pile. For point 2, the Oxford comma is considered more logical. And for point 3, just look it up-- everyone agrees that is acceptable.

TheFont
TheFont

@Jason Considered by whom?

John Magne Trane
John Magne Trane

You have encouraged me to make a new tag line for myself:

"If I wrote anything wrong above, it is because I spelled marmalade on my keyboard."

Thank you :)

MarianM
MarianM

Do you mean spilt?

LenW
LenW

@MarianM I'd be the first to put my hand up to numerous mis-spillings and getting my fingers into a jam without *any* help from marmalade...

Cynthia
Cynthia

I was taught to say "a friend of the President" and never "a friend of the President's" (a friend of the President's what? His dog?) yet now I see this in the mainstream media. What happened? Do people not know that this is wrong?

Maryl
Maryl

@Cynthia There is a thing called a Saxon genitive.  It means that ' a friend of the President's'  is perfectly acceptable. Notice  the difference between 'Book of Job'  and  'a book of Job's'.   In the first case it is a book about Job.  In the second is a book belonging to Job.      

TheFont
TheFont

@Cynthia It's not wrong! Of the President’s friends, he is one. Just make sure you don't use the construction with something of which the President has only one: that enormous nose of the President’s.

Rey
Rey

Richard, there is, or is not, a comma before a conjunction, depending on what it's joining. For example:

He threw the bread and butter (no comma)

He threw the bread, and butter splattered all over the place (comma)

Rey
Rey

The usual Americanism would be "through", but, like "done", it easily takes on a connotation of disgusted finality.

MarianM
MarianM

@Rey No, the Americans say "I'm done" all the time, for example, after finishing a meal.

Leo
Leo

Oh, no one ever left alive

In Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five will ever do...

Russell Watson
Russell Watson like.author.displayName 1 Like

It really irritates me when people put apostrophes after numbers such as 60's music. John's music meaning the music belonging to or written by John. '60s meaning a period of time. I've seen this nonsense even on academic websites. It's terrible.

chrisnsmith
chrisnsmith

@Russell Watson The use of the apostrophe after numbers or symbols where it would be wrong in whole words is legitimate & dates from the c18th at least, '60's is therefore correct, tho' of course that doesn't mean you're forced to like it!

Catherine Jones
Catherine Jones

This irritates me as well, it is completely wrong.  "60s" is a simple plural. "60's" denotes possession.

MarianM
MarianM

What if it is music belonging to the 60s?

TheFont
TheFont

@MarianM Then the apostrophe would have to be placed after the ‘s’.

Richard K
Richard K

I was taught these rules of grammar a long time ago.

1 Fewer in number, less in quantity

2 Using a comma before a conjunction is wrong.

3 Conjunctions join phrases or sentences and should never be used to begin a sentence

The article is littered with points 2 and 3. Physician, heal thyself!

Ilmarinen
Ilmarinen

@Richard K Are you sure that some at least of the conjunctions that the article uses at at the start of sentences are not, rather, adverbs?

Ella
Ella like.author.displayName 1 Like

I would only say "I'm done with this project" in the sense of "I'm done with this project, I'm done with this office, and I'm done with this whole damn town."

Lady Land
Lady Land like.author.displayName 1 Like

I can't stand it when people say 'could of' instead of 'could have'. I really don't won't it to bother me, but I just can't help it.

Gordi Moore- Thanks for the heads up on the numbers, I realized after reading that I do make that mistake.

Catherine Jones
Catherine Jones like.author.displayName 1 Like

It's because the short form of "could have" is "could've" which sounds like "could of" when pronounced.  People who say "could of" do not understand English grammar..

David
David like.author.displayName 1 Like

Well, Gordi, I'd put this in the category of "local custom"

Americans omit the "and" as you do.

English, Australians and New Zealanders include it. Beyond that I'm not sure.

I'm certainly with you on your and you're!

Gordi Moore
Gordi Moore

My pet peeve is about the use of “and” when referring to numbers. The correct way to say the following:

• 2012 - Two thousand twelve

• 155 - One hundred fifty-five

• 1123 - One thousand one hundred twenty-three

“And” is used when there is a period separating dollars from cents:

• $2012.54 - Two thousand, twelve dollars and fifty-four cents

• $155.90 - One hundred fifty-five dollars and ninety cents

• $1123.76 - One thousand one hundred twenty-three dollars and seventy-six cents

The other pet peeve: the use of your and you’re:

This is your book.

You’re going to read your book.

LenW
LenW

@Gordi Moore And my pet peeve is the use of "cents" when referring to "pence". Maybe in the US (I don't actually know for sure - could you please tell us your authoritative source) the rules you mention define the correct forms, but while training to teach English as a foreign language here in the UK I and my fellow students were never picked up on for using, and nor did our tutors ever stipulate that it was wrong to say, for example, "In fourteen hundred and ninety two". 

Catherine Jones
Catherine Jones like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Agree with you about "you" and "you're" but the insertion of "and" when referring to numbers is correct in English English.  Assume it's the other way around in American English.

MarianM
MarianM like.author.displayName 1 Like

It may be correct to you but not to me.  It is two thousand and thirteen to me.