How Does This Affect Me?

I don’t know about you, but I can remember, for the longest time, doing everything I could just to avoid using certain words because of how confusing they were. Trying to differentiate between “lie vs. lay” and “affect vs. effect” just did not seem worth the trouble. After realizing that I would not be able to run from these words forever, I have since discovered some helpful hints for better understanding them.

The main difference between the first words mentioned is that “lay” requires a direct object and “lie” does not. Also, “lay” is an active verb, meaning “to place,” and “lie” is a still or passive verb that means “to recline.”

So you lay the baby down to sleep (the baby is the direct object), and the baby lies in its bed.

 

 

Now, let’s focus our attention on the differences between “affect vs. effect.” The majority of the time you will use the word “affect” with a verb, and you’ll use the word “effect” with a noun. Typically, “affect” means “to influence, but I will provide a definition just to clarify: affect. When considering the word “effect,” the main definition is “a result.” I will provide examples for both:

The speech really affected how I felt on the matter.

Here, “affect” is used as a verb.

The speech had a strong effect on me.

Here, “effect” is used as a noun.

 

My hope is that this blog will have a long, lasting effect on you. For those of you who do not find yourselves in some way affected by these examples of poor grammar, then I hope that I could have at least provided you with some entertainment along the way. 

Hodgepodge

I would like to start off by creating a scenario for you: Imagine a week has gone by since you last bought groceries — you shop at a normal grocery store (not Costco, where you're set for life after just one trip) — and you're wondering what you can throw together for dinner. Looking through the fridge you find some left-over taco meat, half a jar of pasta sauce (better check the expiry date), maybe some questionable vegetables, and some tater tots. On its own, each of these items seems a bit random, but throw them all together and you might get lucky! You'll have either created a masterpiece or be faced with terrible indigestion. This blog will be something like that — a hodgepodge of grammar tidbits all thrown in together. Let's cross our fingers on the outcome.

The first issue I would like to discuss the difference between "fewer" and "less." The word "fewer" is used with count nouns and the word "less" is used with mass nouns (non-count nouns). Count nouns are pretty straight forward, in that they are anything that you can count. Examples are jelly beans, fingers, sheep, etc... Non-count nouns are therefore, the nouns you cannot count. Some examples are clutter or water. Following these rules, most of you will have noticed a common misuse of the word "less" at your grocery store. The express check-outs tend to say "15 items or less," when they should be reading "15 items or fewer."

The second grammar concern I'd like to address is the appropriate usage of "who versus whom." The word "who" is used when referring to the subject of a clause and the word "whom" is used when referring the object of a clause. Another easy trick I have learned for remembering is that if you can substitute the word "he" for "who," then it's correct. And if you can substitute "him" for "whom," then it's correct. Check out the following examples:

Who lives in that tree house?

This is correct because "he" will also work in this sentence.

He lives in that tree house.

 Jack gave his last dollar to whom?

You can see that this is correct because "him" will work in place of "whom."

Jack gave his last dollar to him?

Thirdly, I would like to pose my own question: Does anybody use the word "whelm"? I know it is a word but I don't know whether I've actually ever heard it used before. As I, myself was unsure of the difference between "whelm" and "overwhelm" I would like to provide everyone with an answer I found that I thought gave a very understandable explanation:

Overwhelmed is not really redundant. It is like turned and overturned. Overwhelmed, which is why it is used more frequently, has the connotation of being completely turned over whereas whelmed just means engulfed or overcome by events.

There you go! A little of everything all thrown into one. I hope you enjoyed dinner tonight.

Does Good Grammar Apply to Music Too?

Why is it that in school you can spend hours and hours trying to memorize terms and examples, but you can hear a terrible song and within a few times of listening to it, you’re able to recite the lyrics word for word? If only it were that easy to remember and recall everything in a textbook.

While music is sometimes referred to as being able to “soothe the soul,” there are many songs with titles and lyrics that suggest the opposite effect. Along with not always being the most relaxing, a lot of these songs are promoting "questionable" grammar. A few examples of songs that you might not want to listen to right before your grammar exam are:

“Ain't Nuthin But a Gangsta Party” by 2 Pac
“All Eyez on Me” by 2 Pac
“Picture Me Rollin'” by 2 Pac
“In Da Club” by 50 Cent
“Bitches Ain't Shit” by Ben Folds

Now imagine listening to music like this on a regular basis and having countless song lyrics — with terrible English — as your guide to grammar. I can picture it now: writing an email to a colleague explaining that “this printer ain’t got nuthin’ for toner!” Yikes.

For most of the artists mentioned above, I'm sure, or at least hopeful, that the poor grammar comes mainly from their desire to express emotions in a harsh and informal manner. Even using "informal" in describing these songs, seems too polite and proper for their probable content.

While rap songs appear to commit the obvious grammar offences, many of our favourite alternative songs misuse words and showcase poor grammar. Who are we kidding though? We'd listen to our favourite musicians sing about anything and as fans, would view any grammar mistakes as part of their artistry. I'll end with The Rolling Stones; Would "(I can't get any) satisfaction" have created the same effect?

 

Silly Apostrophe, Tricks are for Kids

I would like to start off discussing contractions — not the kind that the google search first refers to (I’m here to talk about grammar, not give prenatal advice). I don't want you to get the wrong idea here — but rather the contractions that are formed by joining two other words in an attempt to make it shorter. Contractions are most prevalent in casual speaking or writing. A hurdle for a lot of people is differentiating between “its” and “it’s.”

 

 

The contraction “it’s” is a shortened version of “it is” or “it has.” Not that either of those really needs much shortening. “Its” shows possession. Here are a few examples showing the correct usage of both:

Judging from this weather, it’s going to be a long winter.

This is the same as:
Judging from this weather, it is going to be a long winter.

The dog chewed on its bone.

This sentence would not work using it’s because it would then look like this:
The dog chewed on it is bone.

Other contractions people will sometimes confuse are “would’ve” and “who’s,” although not with each other. While, the contraction “would’ve” is short for “would have,” many often mistake “would’ve” for meaning “would of,” which is incorrect. There are even some versions of Microsoft Word that recognize “would of” as being correct. Don’t fall for this grammar check mistake. Now, looking at “Who’s,” we see that it's similar to “it’s” in that you just add an “is” to the first part of the contraction. “Who’s” then becomes “who is,” and this contraction has a different meaning than “whose." “Whose” is the possessive form of both "who" and "which." Here are a few examples that will hopefully help to clear up some of the confusion.

Had I known you would be stopping by, I would've gotten ready.

This is the same as:
Had I known you would be stopping by, I would have gotten ready.

Who's going to help me throw a birthday party for Jack?

I want to throw a birthday party for Jack whose age remains a mystery.

With a little practice and some hints here and there, we get closer and closer to having a better understanding of grammar and all of its quirks.

 

 

 

 

 

Out With the Old, In With the New

There are very few things in this world that you can count on to stay the same: The sun rising and setting, a mother’s love, and the fact that whatever your new “favorite” is on a menu, it will be gone in a month because it’s only seasonal. Language — is not one of those things.

For as long as people could speak, they’ve been redefining meanings and altering their language to suit whichever rules or “standards” applied at that time. There are many words that we use quite regularly but associate with a different meaning than their initial definitions and usages. Here are a few examples of some of the words we use now and their prior meanings:

Along with words having adopted new definitions over time, there are many words that have either lost their meanings or else been created in order to adapt to our ever-changing society.

As technology continues to expand there is a need for new words such as: ringtone, iPad, cellular phone, and wireless. Other absurd words such as: supersize and unibrow are now being recognized in the dictionary. Personally, I think our society should not be supporting either of these words. We could all do without the supersizing of our Big Mac meals and the existence of unibrows; Ernie's the only one supporting that one.

While society and language evolve, there are also words that become unnecessary and eventually disappear from our vocabulary. Words such as: icebox, 8 track, gams, moxie, and barkeep are all examples or words we rarely, if ever, hear anymore.

As much as we might want to keep our favourite outdated words in circulation, we’ll benefit from embracing the changes and new opportunities our language presents — as long as we’re careful not to take advantage of words like “supersize.”

Pet Peeves, Anyone?

We all have our pet peeves, whether it's that guy with his one pant leg rolled up, the driver who didn't give you the "thank-you" wave when you let him in front of you, or the people who pay with debit in the Tim Horton's drive-through — you start to feel your skin turning green and your clothes ripping off as you begin to morph into the Hulk — It's seven in the morning. You just want your coffee! To add to these frustrating moments, I have begun to experience new pet peeves — grammar pet peeves. Dun, dun, dun...

 The first of these annoyances is when people use the word "literally" incorrectly. So, let me start off by giving a definition of the word literally to hopefully clear up some of the confusion.

If people still want to use "literally" incorrectly, then be my guest. Just know that if you're looking to put emphasis on your topic, the only thing being emphasized when you misuse the word "literally," is your lack of understanding regarding the actual meaning of that word.

 Now for some fun examples of the word "literally" being misused:

 

 

 

This is one of those times you hope that you don't have to use the word "literally."

You do not want to be this guy.

 

The second pet peeve of mine is when people use the word "irregardless." According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "irregardless" is considered to be non-standard. By providing a definition of the word regardless, let me show you that "irregardless" is really just a double negative using ir- and -less. "Irregardless" is not a word, regardless of what you might think.

 

Although, most people tend to be fairly forgiving of these grammar faux pas, there are some people who consider themselves to be the "grammar police." By avoiding the "word," "irregardless" and using "literally," in the right context, your run-ins with these people should be less frequent. To wrap up, I hope everyone was able to pick up some helpful grammar information from this blog and not just the fact that I have a lot of pet peeves.