Katablogism » Language

→ The fumblerules of grammar

Kaushik — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:03:09 +0000

You must have heard of the saying “eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation”. This is a “fumblerule”; a rule in english grammar that goes against the very point it wishes to enforce. Brilliant stuff:

A writer must not shift your point of view.

Do not put statements in the negative form.

Avoid commas, that are not necessary.

Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times, resist hyperbole.

Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; seek viable alternatives.

†

It’s… Its… Bah…

Kaushik — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:51 +0000

In my opinion only the grammar hounds have had an issue with this. While speed reading a news article how many times has it really made a difference?

The Correct Usage:

It’s = it is or it has.
Its = possessive pronoun meaning belonging to it.

Is the meaning lost?

These are 2 statements with the correct usage:

It’s A Bird… It’s A Plane… No, It’s Superman!
There is love of course. And then there’s life, its enemy.

The same 2 statements with the so-called incorrect usage:

Its A Bird… Its A Plane… No, Its Superman!
There is love of course. And then there’s life, it’s enemy.

Did the context change? Did the improper apostrophe placement suddenly throw you off in comprehending the meaning? Let’s take a more compelling case:

Nope, Its antenna is fine… it’s a problem with the way you’re holding it.
Nope, Its antenna is fine… its a problem with the way you’re holding it.

I’m pretty sure the intent of the statement remains intact. So in a world trying to embrace simplicity, why bother with the extra apostrophe when the meaning isn’t lost? Don’t get me wrong, I respect the rules of grammar and see the value in adhering to them, but when you have to make a conscious effort to remember when the apostrophe is put or not put (and it makes no difference), I think the purpose needs re-evaluation.

The grammar hounds I was referring to:

Ship High In Transit

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Another forward doing the rounds:

In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship and it was also before commercial fertilizer’s invention, so large shipments of manure were common.

It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water(at sea) came in contact, not only did it become heavier, the process of fermentation began, of which methane gas is a by-product. The stuff was stored below decks(for obvious reasons) in bundles and so the Methane gas began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOM!

Several ships were destroyed in this manner before the actual cause was really determined. After that, the bundles of manure were always stamped with the term “Ship High In Transit” on them, which meant [for the sailors] to stow it high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane.

Thus evolved the term “SHIT” (Ship High In Transit) which has come down through the centuries and is in use to this very day.

Isn’t Etymology fascinating?

59 words that could change the world

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:59:00 +0000

Recently had a conversation with my brother, on the importance of brevity in writing, which is when I recalled this masterpiece:-

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences short or avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Which book did I pick this from? check my post-slug for clues.