语法来源： Englishpedia带来您的求知欲和您的问题，并且我们推测我们古怪的语言 |
支持，当我是初任记者时，并且每个孩子在去的雪在一个小的红色棚子必须走五英哩学校在远端地球， copyeditors统治了至尊在报纸，并且没有办法我可能逃脱了什么T.J。 Simes在做了星期六 洛杉矶时报.
Simers，讽刺(他无疑会更喜欢 嘲笑当他写道)炫耀专栏作家，分开剥去加州大学洛杉矶分校熊橄榄球队和他们的四分卫，凯文工艺：
并且如此观看的凯文工艺戏剧四分卫为熊在星期五夜，当发笑在它的怪异和愚蠢，观看时变得痛苦。
授予，这仅在印刷品编辑，并且某人在网上改正了它，但注意到， Simers有二个主题为一个动词。 一和实际上意欲主题是 观看， 哪些是动名词(动词把变成名词)。 第二个主题是 它立刻在动词之前 成为了. 包括 它 回报句子awakward，语法上不正确和更加坚硬了解。
事实，然而，某人发现错误意味着专栏大概冲打印做最后期限，但仍然，没有借口，伙计。
(我想知道某一copyeditor是否实际上增加了 它 然后安排它在网上改正某人，或许Simers，被捉住它和。 那是更坏的!)
0评论…我为这blog会写更多岗位，并且我会改正那个虚拟语气条目对它适当的形式： “如果我是一个富人….”
看见和怎么我是无处在富有附近，我必须拜倒，如做几个大型装配架和保留破产法庭的所有的人在海湾，只要我能。
When I applied for my latest writing gig, one of the interviewers asked me my pet peeve with misused English, and I answered "the subjunctive mood," which is clearly evident in the song, "If I Was a Rich Man," and in almost everyone’s everyday English when discussing conditional matters in an if construction.
However, I’d also have to rank verb coordination right there with the subjunctive.
For instance, look at this sentence:
"Neither he nor I are happy about this."
Anything wrong here?
Yes, indeed, there is. In a neither/nor or either/or construction, there are two subjects, and sometimes one is singular and one is plural, or one is third person and one is first person, as in this example.
Since you can have only one verb in neither/nor, either/or sentence, which of the two subjects determines the verb? English rules dictate that the second subject determines the verb form. Therefore, the above sentence should read:
"Neither he nor I am happy about this."
Sounds strange, huh? But just like the people who predicted our current economic meltdown a year ago were considered strange, this proper usage is far from strange but absolutely spot on.
I picked up a copy of the New York Times on Thursday, but only because there were photos of a California wine shop I frequent and a story, of sorts, about its owner.
Somehow, in the process I stumped upon a weird feature with weirder photos and still weirder writing in the same section. A piece by someone named Mike Albo entitled "No Frown Is Left Unturned," unfortunately, sucked me in and gobbled up precious moments of my time better spent in things like, um, daydreaming, shouting at my dog or doing nothing.
Anyway, I was about five paragraphs into this guy’s piece when I realized a) he has no clue how to use modifiers and clauses correctly and b) he’s a far-left-leaning, America-hating Vladimir Ilyich Lenin striker (Navy term for apprentice).
Check out this whopper of a misconstructed but totally revealing sentence of his:
It’s totally weird, but after a quick promenade through the store, some deeply repressed part of myself [sic-- me if he wants to use correct English] that has been buried for years under a morose cloud of apocalyptic doom was finally freed.
Ok, but who did the "quick promenade"? There is no subject in the sentence who can take a promenade. This ungrammatical part could’ve been cured by writing, "…after I made a quick promenade…."
I can cure the English grammar (though not the overwrough English), but no one can cure this person who hates the very country he lives in, and thus himself in the bargain.
You must excuse me for being derelict in my English duties for the past couple of weeks. I’ve been busy following our economic turmoil and watching way too much Cramerica (Jim Cramer and his Mad Money CNBC show).
I think I’ve written about George Orwell and his essay on "Politics and the English Language" before, but since we all just went through a nationwide election, it’s time to revisit this bit of Orwellian genius. Take this passage:
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
Now, those of you who voted for Barack Obama will no doubt conclude that John McCain uses slovenly language. Maybe so; Obama is a more polished speaker, barrister and promissory artist that he is. It is rather that I’d like to focus on the "foolish thoughts" observation of Orwell’s.
Was it anything but foolishness to believe that any one person could accomplish everything our president-elect promised.
Free health care? Is anything really free? We’ll all pay with lousier hospitals and long waiting lists. Pull the troops out of Iraq so we can face an enlarged and more empowered Iran? End our dependence on oil without building nuclear plants or allowing offshore drilling? (I love the comment by the presiding party and its leaders: "Drilling won’t solve our problem." I guess it’ll make it worse or do nothing, both of which assertions seem ridiculous and disingenous.)
It is more that people want to believe in the tooth fairy and thus hear what they want to hear.
See, we’re all captive to our "foolish thoughts."
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
![[岗位对Twitter]](http://grammarsource.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}