These Are The Grammatical Errors Currently Plaguing The Autopian’s Staff: Tales From The Slack

As editor of this great ship called The Autopian, I have the pleasure of reading raw, unadulterated copy. And while it’s mostly excellent thanks to the inimitable talents of this fine crew, we do have some grammar issues we need to solve. So, for a little bit of members-only content, here’s a look at some of those grammatical challenges.

Jason Torchinsky is legendary for making a grammatical mistake that he is literally unable to notice unless he pastes his draft into a google doc first and runs a grammar check. It’s the old “there’s [plural]” colloquialism that I just won’t stand for.

It drives me bonkers. It’s “there are”! How can you say “there is yoo-hoos and Kraft Singles in the cooler”? It’s clearly wrong. Jason, please explain yourself:

Happy to, David. I’ll tell you why I do it: I DON’T GIVE A SHIT. It just sounds right to me: there’s lots of reasons why this is just fine and you should just leave me alone. See? Sounds fine. Plus, the “there are” contraction “there’re” just sounds bad to me. It’s awkward to say, like the word “rural,” it feels formless and gooey and wrong. Everyone knows what I mean. Usage dictates grammar, anyway. This is all classist bullshit. So there. Oh, sorry, I mean “so ther’re.” Happy now, asshole?

Also, “Yoo-Hoo” is capitalized, as it is the proper name of a great beverage and philosophy of living. Now who’s perfect?

That leads me to this exchange:

The fewer/less thing mentioned above also drives me nuts. It’s a simple rule! If we’re talking about a plural, use fewer. If you’re talking about an amount/extent, use less! Example: There are fewer apples. There’s less applesauce. See, easy!

[Editor’s Note: Okay, hold on a minute here. This less/fewer thing is absolute, unmitigated bullshit. You know why this alleged rule exists at all? If you think it’s because of some complex grammarian reason, or even due to some origin in Old English or even a borrowed rule from Latin, you’d be wrong. It’s around because some fussy numbnuts in pantaloons named Robert Baker just decided it in 1770.

That’s right! Dick Baker there wrote some boring-ass tome called Reflections on the English Language and in it he drooled out this:

“This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. ‘No Fewer than a Hundred’ appears to me, not only more elegant than ‘No less than a Hundred,’ but more strictly proper.”

That’s it! That’s all the backing this rule has! Richard Baker pulled it ex recto, just reached up that wrinkly ass and pulled this stupid rule out, and now David prays to it like it’s a fucking Aphrodite carved out of rust. It’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard of. 

Does anyone see the “10 items or less” sign at a supermarket and scratch their heads in confusion? No, they don’t because saying “less” there is just fucking fine. You know what we call people who turn to you in line and point up and say “you know, that really should be ten items or fewer?” Assholes. We call them assholes. – JT]

The other thing I mention above is the “try and” colloquialism — it’s “try to.” Don’t say “I’m going to try and walk the dog.” Say “I’m going to try to walk the dog.” This one I don’t really care that much about, but it’s easy! You know what else is easy? Referring to companies/organizations as “its” and not “theys.”

It’s a problem that I’ve had to point out about 1,000 times; even veteran editor Matt gets it wrong sometimes (though, like Jason’s “there’s [plural]” problem, he literally can’t see it! He has to control-F “they” and “their” to catch it. I can respect that).

My first grammatical note above asks writers to use “who” instead of “that” when referring to individuals. “The man that walked down the street” really should be “The man who walked down the street.” It’s fairly straightforward, and also in the legendary grammar book “Elements of Style” by Strunk & White — a book that I bought for each member of our team (out of my own pocket!).

But no grammatical issue is giving me as much trouble as this one:

You see what’s going on here? Writers are linking two independent clauses with a conjunction, and they’re foregoing the comma! Matt is messing with me today:

But even Matt, deep down, knows he’s wrong, for he — like every red-blooded American — has surely watched Schoolhouse Rock’s “Conjunction Junction” video. Behold the masterpiece:

I’m going to allow the University of Wisconsin — Madison to explain how to deal with conjunctions:

 

My beloved business partner and friend Jason always uses the phrase “USAGE DICTATES GRAMMAR” to try to explain his grammatical errors. This is maddening! That’s just an excuse for not wanting to learn the rules.

[Editor’s Note:

– JT]

As I like to say: Typos mean you’re human, bad grammar means you don’t care.

Of course, I say this as the Typo King.