Writing Pet Peeves - "Use to" And "Suppose to"

This is another one seen frequently on social network sites.  Again, it is a case of people writing the way they speak, and words are not often spelled the way they are said.  Enunciation tends to be a problem, but that is a small part of how some words are commonly misspelled.

"Supposed to" - commonly misspelled "suppose to"

This one is tricky because it is an idiom.  People mistakenly misspeak and misspell this one because the correct usage and the incorrect usage sound so much alike and many who say it and attempt to write it have not often read it in context.

The idiom refers to a supposition that has been made (hence the past tense) about someone or something.

Meanings: 
Intended to -  This gift was supposed to (intended to) be for John.
Believed to - He is supposed to (believed to) be out of town.  What is he doing here?
Expected to - You are supposed to (expected to) be home by midnight.
Required to -  I'm supposed to (required to) call home to check in by eleven o'clock.

Not supposed to: not permitted - You're not supposed (not permitted) to be in there.

"Used to" is prone to same common misuse as "supposed to."  (Use to.)

This phrase is also an idiom, and is used in the past tense.

Meanings:
Accustomed to or habituated to - I'm not used to (accustomed to, habituated to) this cold weather
Formerly - That used to be (was formerly) a nice hotel before it fell into disrepair.

We are supposed to use grammar correctly in writing and speaking.  Although we used to write and spell these two idoms correctly in days gone by, social networking, texting and tweeting has all but put an end to their correct usage.  More's the pity.

Writing Pet Peeves: "Mute Point"

Mute Point.

Pardon me?  Are you sure you meant to say "silent point"?  Think about that for a minute, and let it sink in.  What is a mute point?  Is it a point left unexpressed because it is silent?  Does the silence of the point mean there really is no point at all?  If you are a person who makes mute points, what do you mean by that term?

You meant to say "irrelevant point", did you not? 

It is disheartening to say that today's pet peeve is made by otherwise reasonably educated people who should know better.  I have heard this one and seen it in writing one too many times.  I cringe when I hear it coming out of the mouth of a normally literate and articulate professional person.  When I hear it in speech, it makes me want to stand up and rudely interrupt the speaker and ask, "Was it a deaf point too?"  I want to grab a red pen and bleed on offending lines in written work.  When I read it online, usually in a blog post or in a journalistic article I want to tear my hair out. 

I don't understand why people who usually write well commit this one.  The only thing I can figure is they have heard and not read it and assumed the word they heard was "mute", and not "moot". 

I am sure that they would be upset to know that they are abusing the language as they are usually educated enough not to want to sound stupid.

Those undereducated rarely make points, either moot or mute.  This is a term foreign to their usage.

But for those who in the future would like to make their points correctly:

Mute =
1) adj. silent, not speaking
2) adj. incapable of speech
3) n.  One incapable of speech
4) n. a device to deaden the resonance of a musical instrument
5) Transitive verb to deaden the resonance of

Moot =
1) adj. debatable, open to discussion
2) adj. of little or no practical value
3) adj. irrelevant, of no significance
4) adj. hypothetical
5) v. to present or introduce for discussion
6) v. To reduce or remove the practical significance of
7) n. Assembly of people in early England exercising political, administrative and judicial powers
8) n. An argument or discussion of a hypothetical case

For our purposes, a moot point is a debatable point or an irrelevant point, or a point of little or no practical value.   There is no such thing as a mute point.

Writing Pet Peeves: "Would of, Could of, Should of"

"Would of, Could of, Should of"

This latest offense was seen, not for the first time, on facebook. 

I suppose I should've been happy that the offender chose to express himself, but if one is going to use poor grammar, then one should not write at all for public consumption.  Ah, vanity. 

The problem with contractions is they're spoken more than they're written.  I have an aversion to using many contractions when I write because I had it drummed into me in English Composition class that words shouldn't be contracted in writing unless used in dialog.  This makes it more difficult to learn from reading in context, as many writers shunned the use of contractions in formal writing.  That was back in the day.

Just ask the members of my writers' group.  I dislike contractions in their writing too. 

I see more contractions in the prose of contemporary works. 

However, I suspect that the sum total of the offending writer's reading experience is found in pop culture.  People are beginning to write the way they speak.  Twitter and texting are  wreaking havoc (!) with spelling and grammar.

I learned about contractions when I was in what used to be called "grammar school"  I know I'm dating myself, but again I ask, what are they teaching in English class these days?

Karen's unofficial grammar class for today, for those who care:

Contractions really are for speaking.  They're there to make two words easier to pronounce when used together.

Would have  = would've
Could have = could've
Should have = should've

I suppose I should've taken it in stride.  I could've overlooked it.  But that would've gone against my grain. 

Those last three sentences go against my grain too.  In fact, it almost killed me to write this piece.  **sigh**

Writing Pet Peeves: "Despite of"

First, an apology to my readers, all three of you, for not posting in so long.  My writing skills were required elsewhere for the larger part of this month.  I will endeavor to produce more on the blog in the future, with fewer breaks between postings.

Now on to the latest writing pet peeve.  This one comes courtesy of a local restaurant.  There is construction going on next door to them, so they posted a sign that read, "Despite of the construction next door, we are still open."

My inner Grammar Nazi cringed when I saw it.  The incorrect grammar on display is a combination of two grammatically correct ways to say the sentence.

Correct: 1: "Despite the construction next door, we are still open."


Correct 2: "In spite of the construction next door, we are still open"

We have a redundancy of prepositions.  "Despite" is a preposition.  So is "of".  The purpose of a preposition is to show the relation between a noun or a pronoun and another word.  Despite relates the openness of the business with the construction next door.  The "of" has nothing to do with it. 
 
The phrase "in spite of" means "notwithstanding".
 
I am sure the writer of the sign had good intentions.  I see signs such as this one as a product of poor education in the English language.  These things were once taught in elementary and middle school English class.  It makes me wonder what they are teaching in English class these days.  Grammar does not seem to have a high priority.
 
I suspect that it also has to do with time spent reading.  Today's students spend more time on other pursuits, so there are fewer opportunities to see correct grammar used in context.
 
Ah well, poor grammar notwithstanding, I shall continue to eat at the restaurant.

Correct Grammar is Not Politically Correct

This is another pet peeve of mine.  Grammar and gender.  English is already one of the most gender neutral languages, and yet the PC police continually endeavor to gender neutralize it even more.  I chalk this up to a poor education in the area of language arts.  Many high school graduates cannot pass a grammar test these days; a deplorable state of affairs, if you ask me.  But then most people who use poor grammar do not speak a foreign language. 

What do grammar skills have to do with speaking a foreign language?  I'm so glad you asked.

As a student of several foreign languages, I was surprised to discover that the best grammar class I ever took was my French class in high school, and then my German and Spanish classes.  Surpassing all of them was the Russian course I took at the Defense Language Institute.  In matters of grammar, foreign languages assign gender to every single noun, animate or inanimate. 

English only assigns gender to animate objects based on actual gender.  Rarely is the gender neutral  "one" used , usually to make generic statements: "One should never make assumptions."  French also uses the generic "one".  In most other instances, a noun is either male or female.  Groups of people are masculine if only one member of the group is male.  The pleural masculine pronoun is used.  If all members are female, then the group is feminine and uses the pleural femine pronoun.  Never once have I heard of any French speaking feminists getting all hot and bothered about sexist grammar usage, but I have heard many American English speaking feminists decry sexist language. 

Correct grammar is sexist and not politically correct.  In my opinion, trying to force grammar into today's politically correct social mores shows a lack of proper education in the English language.  But it surely makes one more acceptable with the "in"crowd of educrats, politicos and glitteratti who are currently running our country into the ground.

Russian and German both have a neuter gender to keep track of.  But the grammar rules regarding the masculine and feminine genders of both languages are the same as those in French.  Speakers of these languages have no problems with their politically incorrect and sexist grammar rules.  Once again, it is only American English apeakers who get into grammatical gender bending to satisfy some political or social agenda.  If they only knew how ridiculous they sound, they might be motivated to learn English and quit mistaking their supposed enlightenment for a decent education.