-Roleplaying and Writing Tips-
Advice for smooth roleplaying, interesting characters, and overall fun! These tips also work well for other writing projects, from the occasional short story to full-fledged novels and sagas.
Other Roleplay and Writing Tips:
Common Grammar Mistakes
Here I've put a list of all of the grammar mistakes I've discovered so far (in excess). Yes, this is just as important as the previous page; don't get cocky and think you avoid all common mistakes! They're common for a reason.
Additional Resources: I'm not an English teacher, so if you want to look into this more or fact-check me, here are the two books I learned from:
Jane M. Orient: Professor Klugimkopf's Old-fashioned English Grammar | Lara M. Robbins: Grammar & Style at Your Fingertips
Additional Resources: I'm not an English teacher, so if you want to look into this more or fact-check me, here are the two books I learned from:
Jane M. Orient: Professor Klugimkopf's Old-fashioned English Grammar | Lara M. Robbins: Grammar & Style at Your Fingertips
Its versus it's.
A lot of people seem to struggle with this contraction, but once you figure it out it's beyond trivial.
Its is a word that is referring to a thing, usually used in possessive form. Example: “Its eyes scanned me warily, calculating my every move.” Its in that sentence is referring to some unknown thing's eyes and how they moved.
On the other hand, it's is a contraction for “it is”; it is not a possessive word! For example, “It's very windy today”. If you split up the contraction, the sentence turns into “It is very windy today”, which is still correct.
One trick that will make it easier to discern the difference is to view the apostrophe in it's as the dot for the i in is. If you can remember this, it will help greatly.
A lot of people seem to struggle with this contraction, but once you figure it out it's beyond trivial.
Its is a word that is referring to a thing, usually used in possessive form. Example: “Its eyes scanned me warily, calculating my every move.” Its in that sentence is referring to some unknown thing's eyes and how they moved.
On the other hand, it's is a contraction for “it is”; it is not a possessive word! For example, “It's very windy today”. If you split up the contraction, the sentence turns into “It is very windy today”, which is still correct.
One trick that will make it easier to discern the difference is to view the apostrophe in it's as the dot for the i in is. If you can remember this, it will help greatly.
-'ve got.
This is an error that really grates on my nerves. It's a contraction for the phrase “have got”, which is a clunky redundancy. However, it seems to have become an official part of our language. Maybe I'm in denial, but I don't believe that this is a proper phrase, and I find sentences that have this phrase awkward to read through. The most common usage of “-'ve got” usually occurs as “you've got” or “they've got”, but if you split up those contractions you end up with “you have got” or “they have got”. In the context of those phrases, have and got mean the same thing. It's like switching out the word storm in a sentence to tempest. The meaning of the sentence hasn't changed, only the wording of it. So saying “you have got” is a redundancy, similar to saying something like “What it is is a poodle”. You have two is's, which could have been easily avoided by changing the wording to make the sentence smoother: “It's a poodle”. “Have got” is a very common phrase, and it's going to be hard to trim it out of your vocabulary, but believe me, it will make a world of difference. The effort is worth it!
This is an error that really grates on my nerves. It's a contraction for the phrase “have got”, which is a clunky redundancy. However, it seems to have become an official part of our language. Maybe I'm in denial, but I don't believe that this is a proper phrase, and I find sentences that have this phrase awkward to read through. The most common usage of “-'ve got” usually occurs as “you've got” or “they've got”, but if you split up those contractions you end up with “you have got” or “they have got”. In the context of those phrases, have and got mean the same thing. It's like switching out the word storm in a sentence to tempest. The meaning of the sentence hasn't changed, only the wording of it. So saying “you have got” is a redundancy, similar to saying something like “What it is is a poodle”. You have two is's, which could have been easily avoided by changing the wording to make the sentence smoother: “It's a poodle”. “Have got” is a very common phrase, and it's going to be hard to trim it out of your vocabulary, but believe me, it will make a world of difference. The effort is worth it!
Who versus whom.
This is something even I struggle with, and most sentences nowadays only need who anyway. However, there are a few cases where whom would sound better in the sentence. This is presented as how you're trying to use who/whom. It's a bit tricky, especially since I need to work on it myself. The distinction is best described in technical terms, so I'll try to explain it without them.
With who, you use it as the subject of a verb (action). So if you're wondering (an action) who Sally (the subject) is, you say "Who is Sally?"
With whom, it's used as the object of a verb or preposition (words such as on, after, for, in, etc., which are usually before another word). So if you were just on the phone with someone, and you mention it to your mother, she would ask "You were on the phone with whom?"
Using one or the other in the wrong manner isn't as big of a deal as the other grammar mistakes I've listed, and it is socially acceptable to default to who, but it is still something to work on, especially if you're serious with your writing (and it makes your most pompous and scholarly characters sound more in character!)
A few examples to help give both words some context:
“Whoever will we find?” / “Whomever will we find?” - Use whom in this case.
“Who is visiting?” / “Whom is visiting?” - Use who in this case.
“I will slay whoever took her!” / “I will slay whomever took her!” - Use who in this case.
This is something even I struggle with, and most sentences nowadays only need who anyway. However, there are a few cases where whom would sound better in the sentence. This is presented as how you're trying to use who/whom. It's a bit tricky, especially since I need to work on it myself. The distinction is best described in technical terms, so I'll try to explain it without them.
With who, you use it as the subject of a verb (action). So if you're wondering (an action) who Sally (the subject) is, you say "Who is Sally?"
With whom, it's used as the object of a verb or preposition (words such as on, after, for, in, etc., which are usually before another word). So if you were just on the phone with someone, and you mention it to your mother, she would ask "You were on the phone with whom?"
Using one or the other in the wrong manner isn't as big of a deal as the other grammar mistakes I've listed, and it is socially acceptable to default to who, but it is still something to work on, especially if you're serious with your writing (and it makes your most pompous and scholarly characters sound more in character!)
A few examples to help give both words some context:
“Whoever will we find?” / “Whomever will we find?” - Use whom in this case.
“Who is visiting?” / “Whom is visiting?” - Use who in this case.
“I will slay whoever took her!” / “I will slay whomever took her!” - Use who in this case.
Is versus are.
This should not be a common grammar mistake at all. It's a trivial distinction. Is is used in a singular case, and are is used in a possessive case. It's that easy. However, a lot of people seem to be using is instead of are in improper cases. The mistake is usually disguised as a contraction (such as you're or there's). The easiest way to find this mistake is to simply split up your contractions in each sentence in order to make sure that they still read the way they're supposed to.
This should not be a common grammar mistake at all. It's a trivial distinction. Is is used in a singular case, and are is used in a possessive case. It's that easy. However, a lot of people seem to be using is instead of are in improper cases. The mistake is usually disguised as a contraction (such as you're or there's). The easiest way to find this mistake is to simply split up your contractions in each sentence in order to make sure that they still read the way they're supposed to.
Plurals with companies.
Another way to confuse singular and plural terms is when you're referring to a business, entity, organization, club, etc. It's tricky to find the line there, but not hard to avoid crossing:
-Use singular terms when referring to a group, entity, business, etc. For example: "Google is reforming its privacy policy." Google is a business consisting of many people, but because we're referring to the company as a whole entity, we use singular words.
-Use plural terms when referring to the individuals in a group. For example: "I like going to Jimmy John's because their staff are always nice to me." You're talking about the people working at Jimmy John's, not Jimmy John's as the business entity, so we use plural words.
Another way to confuse singular and plural terms is when you're referring to a business, entity, organization, club, etc. It's tricky to find the line there, but not hard to avoid crossing:
-Use singular terms when referring to a group, entity, business, etc. For example: "Google is reforming its privacy policy." Google is a business consisting of many people, but because we're referring to the company as a whole entity, we use singular words.
-Use plural terms when referring to the individuals in a group. For example: "I like going to Jimmy John's because their staff are always nice to me." You're talking about the people working at Jimmy John's, not Jimmy John's as the business entity, so we use plural words.
-Words/-Wards versus -Word/-Ward.
This is something I have learned recently. Some people add (or simply have) personal flair in their posts by having words suffixed by -word or -ward (such as foreword, afterward, inward, etc.) have a proceeding s (creating "forewords", "afterwards", "inwards", etc.). Technically, this isn't correct, and it's easy to trim it out of your habits even if it seems more flamboyant and dramatic to say "I was sucked towards the fire!" Treat these words as if they are plural-without-change, like words such as moose, deer, or fish. Eventually you will find that "I was sucked toward the fire!" sounds just as dramatic and a bit cleaner than before!
This is something I have learned recently. Some people add (or simply have) personal flair in their posts by having words suffixed by -word or -ward (such as foreword, afterward, inward, etc.) have a proceeding s (creating "forewords", "afterwards", "inwards", etc.). Technically, this isn't correct, and it's easy to trim it out of your habits even if it seems more flamboyant and dramatic to say "I was sucked towards the fire!" Treat these words as if they are plural-without-change, like words such as moose, deer, or fish. Eventually you will find that "I was sucked toward the fire!" sounds just as dramatic and a bit cleaner than before!
Who's versus whose.
Just like with its and it's, one version is possessive and the other is a contraction. As you may have guessed, who's means "who is" or "who has"; it is not possessive. Whose is possessive. ("Whose coat is this?")
Just like with its and it's, one version is possessive and the other is a contraction. As you may have guessed, who's means "who is" or "who has"; it is not possessive. Whose is possessive. ("Whose coat is this?")
Then versus than.
Then is used to describe the succession of something. Example: "He put down the rod, then grabbed the rag to clean it." Than is used to make a comparison to something, usually to exaggerate the difference between two things. Example: "This is way easier said than done."
Then is used to describe the succession of something. Example: "He put down the rod, then grabbed the rag to clean it." Than is used to make a comparison to something, usually to exaggerate the difference between two things. Example: "This is way easier said than done."
Laying, lying, lay and lie.
This is a rather confusing set of words since there is some definition overlap between them depending on the context. The first thing to understand is that lay and lie are two different words, but can both be used in the same context:
"You lay down the blanket before you lie down".
Only lie, lied, and lying have the double meanings of telling falsehoods. The overlap occurs with the other tenses for these two words, which can be easily distinguished from one another by looking at their literal definitions: lay, to set or place, and lie, to recline back. Recline = a prone or leaning posture, usually on the back, belly, or side, often used for sleeping or resting in. The tenses for lay are laying (present) and laid (past). The tenses for lie are lay (future), lain (past), and lying (present).
"He laid the sword on the table." He set the sword down.
"We were laying down boulders when you came along." Boulders were being set down.
"The snake lay stretched across the path." The snake placed itself there.
"It wouldn't have been good had you lain there." You didn't recline there.
"Let sleeping dogs lie." The dogs should be left reclined.
"I was lying down when I heard the strangest noise." You were reclining when it happened.
"It lied down right as the lights when out." The thing reclined.
If you're having trouble with any of this, a good first step is to limit lie, lied, and lying exclusively to fibbing. Else, try to rethink the sentences with the keywords set for lay and recline for lie. It'll help you decide which word is appropriate for the sentence.
This is a rather confusing set of words since there is some definition overlap between them depending on the context. The first thing to understand is that lay and lie are two different words, but can both be used in the same context:
"You lay down the blanket before you lie down".
Only lie, lied, and lying have the double meanings of telling falsehoods. The overlap occurs with the other tenses for these two words, which can be easily distinguished from one another by looking at their literal definitions: lay, to set or place, and lie, to recline back. Recline = a prone or leaning posture, usually on the back, belly, or side, often used for sleeping or resting in. The tenses for lay are laying (present) and laid (past). The tenses for lie are lay (future), lain (past), and lying (present).
"He laid the sword on the table." He set the sword down.
"We were laying down boulders when you came along." Boulders were being set down.
"The snake lay stretched across the path." The snake placed itself there.
"It wouldn't have been good had you lain there." You didn't recline there.
"Let sleeping dogs lie." The dogs should be left reclined.
"I was lying down when I heard the strangest noise." You were reclining when it happened.
"It lied down right as the lights when out." The thing reclined.
If you're having trouble with any of this, a good first step is to limit lie, lied, and lying exclusively to fibbing. Else, try to rethink the sentences with the keywords set for lay and recline for lie. It'll help you decide which word is appropriate for the sentence.
Awhile and Alot.
The easy one to explain: alot isn't a word. It needs a space between the a and the l. Awhile is a word, but the addition of a simple space between the a and the w changes its usage. Awhile has an implied preceding for; always treating awhile as "for awhile" can help you determine whether it fits the sentence, or needs to be "a while" instead. Examples:
"He left the house for awhile."
"It took a while for the fish to be caught."
To say "it took awhile for the fish to be caught" is incorrect, since the implied "for" would turn it into "it took for awhile for the fish to be caught." That just sounds silly.
The easy one to explain: alot isn't a word. It needs a space between the a and the l. Awhile is a word, but the addition of a simple space between the a and the w changes its usage. Awhile has an implied preceding for; always treating awhile as "for awhile" can help you determine whether it fits the sentence, or needs to be "a while" instead. Examples:
"He left the house for awhile."
"It took a while for the fish to be caught."
To say "it took awhile for the fish to be caught" is incorrect, since the implied "for" would turn it into "it took for awhile for the fish to be caught." That just sounds silly.
Further and farther.
This is another one I didn't know about until recently. The trick is this: farther is used when referencing the actual, physical distance, whereas further is used to refer to additional or conceptual length. Like so:
"To reach the camp, we had to hike a mile farther." Farther is referring to the distance covered.
"The shark swam farther than we thought."
"You need to space these cones farther apart."
"I didn't argue any further." Further is refering to the potential to continue speaking.
"He abstained from further annoying me."
"The records further showed a dramatic increase in cellular activity."
This is another one I didn't know about until recently. The trick is this: farther is used when referencing the actual, physical distance, whereas further is used to refer to additional or conceptual length. Like so:
"To reach the camp, we had to hike a mile farther." Farther is referring to the distance covered.
"The shark swam farther than we thought."
"You need to space these cones farther apart."
"I didn't argue any further." Further is refering to the potential to continue speaking.
"He abstained from further annoying me."
"The records further showed a dramatic increase in cellular activity."
Could have, not could of.
This problem stemmed from accents slurring pronunciations together. It is easily fixed by simply recognizing the words and their meanings.
Could, should and would are all words that indicate a possibility.
Have is a word used to indicate ownership or to describe something that has happened or been experienced ("I have an omelet", "I have heard of the event", etc.).
Of, by contrast, is a descriptive word. It is used for comparisons or to refer to parts of things ("Dalmations are part of the animal kingdom", "The wall texture is of a grapefruit's", etc.)
So, if you think about it, only the sentence "I could have had pizza, but I like burgers better" makes sense, because you're describing your choice ownership of food. "I could of had pizza, but I like burgers better" does not make sense because "of" isn't being used as a comparison or to refer to a part of the subject.
This problem stemmed from accents slurring pronunciations together. It is easily fixed by simply recognizing the words and their meanings.
Could, should and would are all words that indicate a possibility.
Have is a word used to indicate ownership or to describe something that has happened or been experienced ("I have an omelet", "I have heard of the event", etc.).
Of, by contrast, is a descriptive word. It is used for comparisons or to refer to parts of things ("Dalmations are part of the animal kingdom", "The wall texture is of a grapefruit's", etc.)
So, if you think about it, only the sentence "I could have had pizza, but I like burgers better" makes sense, because you're describing your choice ownership of food. "I could of had pizza, but I like burgers better" does not make sense because "of" isn't being used as a comparison or to refer to a part of the subject.
Pronoun Usage.
A lot of people might go up in flames over this, but by no means do they have to do as I say. This section is written for people who want to use English correctly, not be outlandishly respectful toward everyone but themselves. So, before proceeding, you have to ask yourself what your writing goal is:
Is it to have a lot of people love your writing?
Or is it for you to write correctly?
If your goal is to be popular, or if you feel like you would hate what I have to say, I urge you to skip this section to avoid any possible indignation later on.
Now, English has always had three singular pronouns: him, her, and it, and one plural pronoun: they. At the time I'm writing this though, a lot of people are pushing for more pronouns to be added. Why? Because they feel like the current pronouns discriminate against people who don't want to be called him or her, and it is perceived to be dehumanizing. So far only one pronoun seems to be “catching on”, and another is being reformed. However, both of these pronouns butcher up any sentence to the point of being unreadable. These two pronouns are “xir” and "they". (Other new “pronouns” have been made as well (like "nir"), but they aren't words any more than “xir” is).
I believe that “xir” is not a pronoun. It's a random noise that people make when they're trying to be politically correct because they don't want to offend people who might rage about being referred to as what they look like (boys or girls). Every text editor I have ever used even say it's not a word!
“They” is a pronoun, but it is not a singular pronoun!! I cannot stress that enough. “They” is used to refer to multiple entities at once: “They went to school”, “They began murmuring among themselves”, “They jeered and laughed at me”. It is a plural pronoun. A sentence using “they” as a singular pronoun (refers to only one person) is incorrect: “They shook their head, before finally replying.”
Wrong.
There are going to be people who are mad at you and call you all sorts of names if you refuse to use improper pronouns to refer to them, but if you actually care about improving your writing, it won't matter to you. Those people simply won't be your audience. Don't think they're your only audience, either; there are lots of people out there who think the new pronouns are ridiculous, but most of them are nice people who normally wouldn't care. They don't want to cause a fuss, so they don't say anything. All of the people who will scream at you, because you're “discriminating against <X> by not calling <X> 'xir's or 'they's", are just a very loud minority, like one squeaky wheel on a car. Don't let it get to you. If you're passionate about proper English usage, the struggle is worthwhile. You'll sound smarter, your posts will read better, you'll gain a good writing reputation for it, and on top of it all, you'll bolster the confidence of anyone stressed out by this silly societal construct.
Note: If you're still unsure of what to do when it comes to referring to strangers or androgynous characters, the grammatically-correct equivalent to "gender neutral" pronouns is actually he (according to Shakespearean English, which is the "old English" of America). The reason for this is because it used to be polite to assume someone is a man before the gender is revealed (unless it's obvious that the person is a woman).
There are many people who like to believe that this is a sign left over from America's more patriarchal time (pre-1940s), and while historically that's true, it's not bad behavior either. For one, there's a 50/50 chance that any person you meet was - or still is - male or female. That's just how humans biologically are. Male pronouns became the standard for addressing unknown people because it was statistically more likely to meet a strange man than a strange woman pre-1940s, especially out in public and even more especially in business. Secondly, if you were taught it was polite to assume someone is a fish, you would call everyone a fish until proven otherwise, wouldn't you? Likewise, people back then were taught that assuming a male gender was polite, and nowadays we're taught assuming gender at all is wrong, which is why the old English standard was dropped and pronouns were created or deliberately misused. Personally, my answer for this is simple:
Have you (or your character) make an educated guess as to what the other character would most likely be. If it's truly impossible to guess, default to traditional English and assume male. Let the other person's character have fun correcting your character. Turn your hesitance into an amusing case of misunderstanding between characters. It's as easy as that.
A lot of people might go up in flames over this, but by no means do they have to do as I say. This section is written for people who want to use English correctly, not be outlandishly respectful toward everyone but themselves. So, before proceeding, you have to ask yourself what your writing goal is:
Is it to have a lot of people love your writing?
Or is it for you to write correctly?
If your goal is to be popular, or if you feel like you would hate what I have to say, I urge you to skip this section to avoid any possible indignation later on.
Now, English has always had three singular pronouns: him, her, and it, and one plural pronoun: they. At the time I'm writing this though, a lot of people are pushing for more pronouns to be added. Why? Because they feel like the current pronouns discriminate against people who don't want to be called him or her, and it is perceived to be dehumanizing. So far only one pronoun seems to be “catching on”, and another is being reformed. However, both of these pronouns butcher up any sentence to the point of being unreadable. These two pronouns are “xir” and "they". (Other new “pronouns” have been made as well (like "nir"), but they aren't words any more than “xir” is).
I believe that “xir” is not a pronoun. It's a random noise that people make when they're trying to be politically correct because they don't want to offend people who might rage about being referred to as what they look like (boys or girls). Every text editor I have ever used even say it's not a word!
“They” is a pronoun, but it is not a singular pronoun!! I cannot stress that enough. “They” is used to refer to multiple entities at once: “They went to school”, “They began murmuring among themselves”, “They jeered and laughed at me”. It is a plural pronoun. A sentence using “they” as a singular pronoun (refers to only one person) is incorrect: “They shook their head, before finally replying.”
Wrong.
There are going to be people who are mad at you and call you all sorts of names if you refuse to use improper pronouns to refer to them, but if you actually care about improving your writing, it won't matter to you. Those people simply won't be your audience. Don't think they're your only audience, either; there are lots of people out there who think the new pronouns are ridiculous, but most of them are nice people who normally wouldn't care. They don't want to cause a fuss, so they don't say anything. All of the people who will scream at you, because you're “discriminating against <X> by not calling <X> 'xir's or 'they's", are just a very loud minority, like one squeaky wheel on a car. Don't let it get to you. If you're passionate about proper English usage, the struggle is worthwhile. You'll sound smarter, your posts will read better, you'll gain a good writing reputation for it, and on top of it all, you'll bolster the confidence of anyone stressed out by this silly societal construct.
Note: If you're still unsure of what to do when it comes to referring to strangers or androgynous characters, the grammatically-correct equivalent to "gender neutral" pronouns is actually he (according to Shakespearean English, which is the "old English" of America). The reason for this is because it used to be polite to assume someone is a man before the gender is revealed (unless it's obvious that the person is a woman).
There are many people who like to believe that this is a sign left over from America's more patriarchal time (pre-1940s), and while historically that's true, it's not bad behavior either. For one, there's a 50/50 chance that any person you meet was - or still is - male or female. That's just how humans biologically are. Male pronouns became the standard for addressing unknown people because it was statistically more likely to meet a strange man than a strange woman pre-1940s, especially out in public and even more especially in business. Secondly, if you were taught it was polite to assume someone is a fish, you would call everyone a fish until proven otherwise, wouldn't you? Likewise, people back then were taught that assuming a male gender was polite, and nowadays we're taught assuming gender at all is wrong, which is why the old English standard was dropped and pronouns were created or deliberately misused. Personally, my answer for this is simple:
Have you (or your character) make an educated guess as to what the other character would most likely be. If it's truly impossible to guess, default to traditional English and assume male. Let the other person's character have fun correcting your character. Turn your hesitance into an amusing case of misunderstanding between characters. It's as easy as that.
Shared singular and plural spellings.
This is another trivial thing that most people shouldn't have problems with, but maybe I just understand English really well. Regardless, some people have difficulties with words that serve both singular and plural meanings, which is revealed upon the context of the sentence. For example, deer. You could say “I saw a deer today”, or you could say “I saw a herd of deer today”. The plural of deer is deer. You don't say “I saw a herd of deers today”. That is incorrect.
There's another group of plural words that can be confusing for a different reason; for example, fruit and people. Some people say fruits in terms of a plural, and peoples with the same reasoning. The logic is that the singular-plural word can be used to refer to a group of that thing, whereas the “major plural word”, as I call them, is used to refer to many of those groups of that thing. For example, the Indians are a people, but the entire human race can be referred to as the “peoples of Earth”. I personally think that attaching an s onto an already-plural word is silly, and group size should be determined by the structure and context of the sentence. I avoid the "plural counterparts" of plural words (like fruit and fruits) for that reason. From what I've gathered it's technically correct to use those words, as long as you know what you're doing and don't misuse them, but I have yet to find a sentence that flows better with a “major plural word”.
This is another trivial thing that most people shouldn't have problems with, but maybe I just understand English really well. Regardless, some people have difficulties with words that serve both singular and plural meanings, which is revealed upon the context of the sentence. For example, deer. You could say “I saw a deer today”, or you could say “I saw a herd of deer today”. The plural of deer is deer. You don't say “I saw a herd of deers today”. That is incorrect.
There's another group of plural words that can be confusing for a different reason; for example, fruit and people. Some people say fruits in terms of a plural, and peoples with the same reasoning. The logic is that the singular-plural word can be used to refer to a group of that thing, whereas the “major plural word”, as I call them, is used to refer to many of those groups of that thing. For example, the Indians are a people, but the entire human race can be referred to as the “peoples of Earth”. I personally think that attaching an s onto an already-plural word is silly, and group size should be determined by the structure and context of the sentence. I avoid the "plural counterparts" of plural words (like fruit and fruits) for that reason. From what I've gathered it's technically correct to use those words, as long as you know what you're doing and don't misuse them, but I have yet to find a sentence that flows better with a “major plural word”.
I as a plural distinction.
For the longest time the plural of octopus was octopi, and the plural of hippopotamus was hippopotami, etc., because of the Latin roots for those words. Yet for some reason, modern dictionaries (as in 2005+, from what I've seen) don't recognize these plural words, even though they've been in use for who knows how long. Instead, the modern plurals are “octopuses” and “hippopotamuses”. Both are incorrect. This plural distinction isn't very expansive – the two examples I gave are literally the only ones I can think of from the top of my head – but the distinction is important, just like with any other grammar mistake. The modern plurals of those words sound clunky and can be awkward to pronounce several times over. The old-fashioned plural words flow much better. I strongly advise favoring them.
Note: Merriam-Webster is an online dictionary that is well-used, but it's important to know that it's a dictionary for the common language. That means if a bunch of people start consistently mispronouncing, misspelling, or misusing a word, Merriam-Webster will update to reflect the "new" definition of that word. This means that it does not enforce proper English usage (I can't say it's the same with other languages since I don't use them). All it does is tell you what the rest of the world is using.
For the longest time the plural of octopus was octopi, and the plural of hippopotamus was hippopotami, etc., because of the Latin roots for those words. Yet for some reason, modern dictionaries (as in 2005+, from what I've seen) don't recognize these plural words, even though they've been in use for who knows how long. Instead, the modern plurals are “octopuses” and “hippopotamuses”. Both are incorrect. This plural distinction isn't very expansive – the two examples I gave are literally the only ones I can think of from the top of my head – but the distinction is important, just like with any other grammar mistake. The modern plurals of those words sound clunky and can be awkward to pronounce several times over. The old-fashioned plural words flow much better. I strongly advise favoring them.
Note: Merriam-Webster is an online dictionary that is well-used, but it's important to know that it's a dictionary for the common language. That means if a bunch of people start consistently mispronouncing, misspelling, or misusing a word, Merriam-Webster will update to reflect the "new" definition of that word. This means that it does not enforce proper English usage (I can't say it's the same with other languages since I don't use them). All it does is tell you what the rest of the world is using.
Conjoining words like and at the beginning of a sentence.
Most people can easily recall one rule more finicky English teachers remind their pupils of: never use but at the beginning of a sentence. While this is important for the same reason as not using and, I think the misuse of and is far more commonplace.
Words like and and but are used to link two sentences or phrases together, so it's grammatically incorrect to use it at the beginning of a sentence, because there is nothing to proceed the and in order to allow it to link to the sentence after it. So even though you can still easily read "It's odd how he never noticed how burnt the note was. And it seemed he wouldn't notice for a while", it's still written incorrectly. In this case it's easily amended by replacing the period with a comma and making the a in and lowercase, but in some cases it can be annoying to fix this mistake because it removes the "feel" the sentence otherwise gives with that abrupt ending. That's why I recommend checking for and sentences right away, before you work it into your writing habits and are forced to restructure your sentences in the future.
Most people can easily recall one rule more finicky English teachers remind their pupils of: never use but at the beginning of a sentence. While this is important for the same reason as not using and, I think the misuse of and is far more commonplace.
Words like and and but are used to link two sentences or phrases together, so it's grammatically incorrect to use it at the beginning of a sentence, because there is nothing to proceed the and in order to allow it to link to the sentence after it. So even though you can still easily read "It's odd how he never noticed how burnt the note was. And it seemed he wouldn't notice for a while", it's still written incorrectly. In this case it's easily amended by replacing the period with a comma and making the a in and lowercase, but in some cases it can be annoying to fix this mistake because it removes the "feel" the sentence otherwise gives with that abrupt ending. That's why I recommend checking for and sentences right away, before you work it into your writing habits and are forced to restructure your sentences in the future.
All custom content displayed on this site is copyright of the creator. Before doing anything on this site, please review this page for distribution rights.