Yeah, that reminds me of "bananas are healthy" (the fruit itself is in good health) vs "bananas are healthful" (they promote good health in the person eating them). The first one isn't wrong, per se, but it is frequently used incorrectly.
I disagree with the nauseated/nauseous answer. Language is dynamic and consistent usage over time makes a construction correct. Contrariwise one shalt evermore be obligated to adopt antiquated speech patterns
These days I'm as descriptivist as they come, which is why I actually kind of like that this quiz really puts all these "rules" into the appropriate context: as trivia. Fun to know, occasionally useful, but ultimately unimportant.
That one, I would say, is outdated to the point of being wrong. Grammar can make as many rules as it wants, but if it does not reflect how language is actually used then it is not serving its purpose. Grammar is supposed to enhance clarity of language by codifying, not shaping, common usage. Rules that insist on a "correct" usage contrary a majority of speakers do the opposite.
Regarding Question 3, I never hear anyone use a phrase like "she and he" anymore. It's more like she and (that person's name) went to the store. Or she went to the store with (person's name).
With regard to that, I'd like to have seen an example like "me and him" used correctly. "So-and-so and I" being used as an object is annoying when the speaker is trying to sound smart by being incorrect. I can't count the number of times I've been smugly "corrected" by strangers for using compound pronouns properly. It's so simple to go back and see which is correct by using each pronoun singularly in the same sentence. Nobody ever says "with I", so "with Jim and I" is blatantly wrong.
Look and me and him. As to me or I, you know which to use if you are the only person in the sentence. The rule does not change if you have a companion. I am going out. Will you come with me? Tom and I are going out? Will you come with Tom and me?
People are afraid of the word "me". And to a lesser degree, "I". They think using "myself" is good grammar. So we constantly hear "Myself and my family went on holiday" instead of "My family and I went on holiday" or "He told my brother and myself" instead of "He told my brother and me". It drives me mad.
The less than/fewer than argument is really running out of steam. Like "never end a sentence with a preposition", these "rules" were someone's grammatic preferences that made it into a textbook and not rules that did anything to improve the clarity or intention of the sentence. "... descriptive grammarians (who describe language as actually used) point out that this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770" - Wikipedia
Just rules for someone to quote to make someone else feel stupid. (Most rules have a real purpose, these don't)
I agree with your overall point that a lot of these rules are unnecessary and outdated, many borrowed from Latin and applied arbitrarily to English. I disagree that the distinction between less / fewer than falls into this category. There is a useful difference between the way the two terms are applied that helps to distinguish what is being counted and how. When such distinctions are lost, so is some of the nuance and subtlety of our language. It is a loss to the English language, for example, that disinterested and uninterested are coming to mean the same thing.
Less/fewer has a specific purpose regardless of the prevalent misuse; they convey a different message. However, and I'm not an English teacher like Kalbahamut (though I went to school to become one), so they may correct me here, there's no actual rule that one may not finish a sentence with a preposition, it was simply considered uncouth to do so in the past.
No trouble there, although if you're really being strict then you might prefer "social media affect" rather than "affects". The Cyprus one made me laugh.
Regarding no.10 - "Lunch made me feel nauseous" seems correct to me. If you eat a meal, something in it upsets you, and you feel you want to vomit, then it's made you feel nauseous.
@TurkeyCookTime is correct. When you say "I'm nauseous", what you are really saying is "I induce nausea in others". Of course, the popular usage has changed over time and the incorrect usage is more common than the correct one. That's why I included the caveat about a stern English teacher.
Even Merriam-Webster considers that both words would be correct in that situation. That's no longer being stern, that's being so pedantic you go against the dictionary.
Exactly. It isn't incorrect because both "causing nausea" and "affected with nausea" are included in Merriam Webster's definition of the word, and other dictionaries actually have "affected with nausea" as the first definition. This one crosses the line from grammar snob to pure pedant.
My Oxford English Dictionary has 2 definitions for Nauseous. Definition 1 is: "Affected with nausea, sick, nauseated"
ie It considers them synonyms. I'd argue that at least in the U.K. most people would use nauseous. I've never heard anyone say "I feel nauseated" or "the food made me feel nauseated."
I don't think @TurkeyCookTime is correct. Here are the primary definitions of nauseous in both of my go-to dictionaries: "affected with nausea; inclined to vomit" (Google); "affected by nausea" (Collins). "Causing nausea" is the secondary definition in both.
Perhaps the word "feel" is superfluous, but it would be superfluous in both options.
(Maybe you're thinking of noxious? That one is only used in the sense of causing problems.)
Or maybe it's all because the stern English teacher is high (see the caveat...)
dictionaries can be incredibly prescriptive. They are getting better especially in online editions, but historically dictionaries have not been purely descriptive at all
Highly disagree with Mighty. How things are used defines what is correct. That's the entire basis of contemporary linguistics -- descriptivism. Linguistic prescriptivism has been left in the past (for the most part) for a good reason.
Lexis? What dictionary uses the term "lexis"? Usage is the term I've always heard for cases like that. But yes, many of these aren't strictly grammar in the traditional sense. Ironically, the changing nature of language expands the definition of what might be considered incorrect grammar, while also excusing many of those cases from being considered incorrect grammar!
Most of them do, Dimby. It's an important distinction. And I've worked on many dictionaries. If you're not familiar with the term, lexis means vocabulary, hence lexicon and grammar is to do with the guidelines that make utterances comprehensible to each other. I suggest you read some Chomsky if you're interested in the structure of language
Oh Noam Chomsky… he’s one of those guys I’ve always thought I should read, but I’ve never had an essay or a project where his research popped up. Maybe your comment is enough for me to go find some of his work and read it for fun!
I once brought up the use of prepositional choice with some of my co-workers. I grew up saying "by accident," but I observed that many people say "on accident." (I'm from New England, but was living in the Pacific NW at the time.) I was hoping to determine if such usage was primarily a regional or generational difference. Although there is some overlap, it appears to be mostly generational, with those in their 30s and younger preferring "on accident," a phrase that sound very odd to my aged ears.
I thought "call out" and "call in" are each just a phrase with a defined, understood meaning. Where I work, people say "call out." "If you aren't able to come in, just call out." I've answered the phone to "hey this is so-and-so, I have to call out today." And "callout" is used as a noun, like "there were a couple of callouts today so we weren't able to hit the goal times." I know other places, and my father, use the phrase "call in" with the same meaning, but at my jobs I've typically heard "call out" and I don't know that it has to be wrong.
Even though nauseous and nauseated are often used to mean feeling unwell, many purists insist that nauseous means “causing nausea” while nauseated means “feeling sick. ”In everyday modern usage, it is acceptable to use both words to mean feeling ill—your audience will likely understand what you mean
#13 isn't about grammar, it's about capitalization. Just to be sure, I Googled "Is capitalization grammar?" and got "Capitalization is not a part of grammar. Grammar deals strictly with words and word usage."
If you try to teach writing in grammar class and skip capitalization (and punctuation), you're doing it wrong. Common usage of the term grammar does include capitalization and punctuation, even if some academics prefer to be more strict about what is and isn't included in the meaning of the word grammar. And like most things in language, once they become common usage, the meanings of words evolve to match their new common usage.
OH I've just realised the than/then mistake must be because of how it sounds in American accents. I was always puzzled by that one, it's difficult to get them confused in English accents at least
Did you mean, "choose the one that a stern high school English teacher would prefer"? Because, stern or not, I suspect most English teachers would accept the incorrect version while high.
Most of these are to do with lexicon and not grammar. Who decides what a word means? Surely the only answer can be a descriptive rather than prescriptive one. Usage decides meaning. The ghost of Shakespeare could be sitting on my sofa yelling 'distracted means crazy' and it wouldn't be right. To him, in 1600 it meant that, now it means 'not focusing' or something like that almost all the time. Language is not set in stone, nobody has more power because once it was used in a particularly way and that person insists on that usage.
Well, this is still mostly grammar related. There is "grammar" in a more strict sense, and "grammar" in a more loose sense.
But your larger point about the transitory nature of language and the mutability of authority on it is well-taken and I can hardly disagree.
I once had a disagreement with somebody who had 2 Master's degrees, including a degree in English, and I only had a B.A. in it. My point was that I was using a word in a particular way and in the same usage as one in the OED, but the person I was arguing with this about it said that it was nevertheless incorrect because it didn't conform with any usage of the word in Webster's and that the OED was *only* descriptive and not definitive.
The person I was arguing with might have been technically correct on the differences between the OED and Webster's, but that doesn't mean that a superimposition of that differential onto how I used the word that I used is supremely authoritative, which my friend insisted that it was.
No, I agree. It's perhaps unintentionally humourous that a quiz based on nitpicks itself fails the nitpick test between the title and content of the quiz.
Interesting. The worry about "nauseous" doesn't exist in British English ("Lunch made me feel nauseous" is no more problematic than "Praying made me feel pious"), and "nauseated" is normally used only as a verb.
Thanks for this quiz. I really enjoyed it. "She and he" in the nominative is correct, but sounds so awkward, partly because it's so rarely heard and partly because there are few situations in which the antecedent would be clear. Inappropriate use of whom is one of my pet peeves, as well as one you didn't point out: inappropriate use of reflexive pronouns. For example: "Please contact me or my associate." I often times hear the reflexive pronoun used instead, and it drives me bonkers.
I have to admit, though, that #12 had me think twice. Prepositions always give me a difficult time. I chose the correct answer, changed it, changed it back, and then moved on. I feel like I still don't really understand it but just was lucky.
Actually, #8 is 100% grammatically correct as well. Maybe Quizmaster is an advocate for lazy judicial policies. #12 is also grammatically correct, although I'm not sure what the meaning would be. And, #15 is grammatically correct as well if the person who wrote the sentence is unaware of any other Japanese automotive manufacturers.
Thank you for including the i.e. vs e.g example. It is a huge pet peeve for me at work, because about 90% of people believe the two are interchangeable :/
Flabbergasted by my score. Had 15/16 correct (only the who/whom one was wrong)...English isn't my primary language. Now let's hope it sticks around. xD
There was a TV show in the early 1970s called The Courtship of Eddie’s Father where the child would say, e.g., “I and Mrs. Livingston” to avoid the “Mrs. Livingston and me” as subjects error. It sounded so cute. Also I was taught not to use “nauseous” when “nauseated” was meant. Another thing that used to mark a care for the use of English was “clothing is hung, people are hanged.” It is surprising how often that comes up when you listen for it.
Good work Quizmaster. I think you meant to say "high school" in your bullet point, though. Perfect quiz in which to make a mistake :-)
I do see this "Should of" thing creeping in, these days. I think it's quite a fun expression, really. However, I reserve a special disdain for people who misuse "literally"; let's start a campaign against it.
Maybe you could consider the phrasing "The winningest quarterback" in a future instalment!
irregardless is real! it came before the word regardless I think. only incorrect grammar nazis don't use the word. imagine being annoying and incorrect.
Just rules for someone to quote to make someone else feel stupid. (Most rules have a real purpose, these don't)
ie It considers them synonyms. I'd argue that at least in the U.K. most people would use nauseous. I've never heard anyone say "I feel nauseated" or "the food made me feel nauseated."
Perhaps the word "feel" is superfluous, but it would be superfluous in both options.
(Maybe you're thinking of noxious? That one is only used in the sense of causing problems.)
Or maybe it's all because the stern English teacher is high (see the caveat...)
.”In everyday modern usage, it is acceptable to use both words to mean feeling ill—your audience will likely understand what you mean.
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously - grammatically correct but semantically nonsensical;)
Becky deleted the file by accident.
Becky deleted the file on accident.
The airline struggles as many crew members call in sick.
The airline struggles as many crew members call out sick.
But your larger point about the transitory nature of language and the mutability of authority on it is well-taken and I can hardly disagree.
I once had a disagreement with somebody who had 2 Master's degrees, including a degree in English, and I only had a B.A. in it. My point was that I was using a word in a particular way and in the same usage as one in the OED, but the person I was arguing with this about it said that it was nevertheless incorrect because it didn't conform with any usage of the word in Webster's and that the OED was *only* descriptive and not definitive.
The person I was arguing with might have been technically correct on the differences between the OED and Webster's, but that doesn't mean that a superimposition of that differential onto how I used the word that I used is supremely authoritative, which my friend insisted that it was.
Thank you for making a quiz I had a reasonable chance of getting 5 points on, as well as for reassuring me of my grammatical prowess.
I have to admit, though, that #12 had me think twice. Prepositions always give me a difficult time. I chose the correct answer, changed it, changed it back, and then moved on. I feel like I still don't really understand it but just was lucky.
I do see this "Should of" thing creeping in, these days. I think it's quite a fun expression, really. However, I reserve a special disdain for people who misuse "literally"; let's start a campaign against it.
Maybe you could consider the phrasing "The winningest quarterback" in a future instalment!