The Thread for Competitive Grammar-Nazism

[Gori the Grey]

The rules of the game will be as follows. A first poster (hereafter Poster One) makes a post. It must include one error in grammar, spelling or usage. A subsequent poster, whom we will call Poster Two, identifies the error in Poster One’s post and excoriates Poster One for that error. Style points for particularly colorful vituperation. In the course of his post, Poster Two must him or herself include a grammatical error. A third poster—let us call this poster Poster Three—identifies the error in Poster Two’s post, lambasts Poster Two for his (or her) error, but in doing so, commits some linguistic transgression—to be in its turn identified and condemned by Poster Four. And so on.

Gori the Grey will develop on the fly, and apply with studied inconsistency and arbitrariness, a scoring system of some sort. He stands as (self-appointed) Grammar Führer and one-man court of last resort for all such disputes as might arise in the course of the competition, and reserves the right to invent new rules as necessity or whim may dictate.

Other forms of unctuous self-aggrandizing will be tolerated, and perhaps celebrated, but these may only supplement, never replace, Grammar Nazism.

Since there is no previous post to which I can respond, my castigation must be proleptic. Let me just say, then, that the woefully (sometimes alarmingly) low discursive standards on this site make me doubtful in the extreme that any of you well-nigh-illiterate cretins will be able to identify the error I have included in this post. And no, it is not the sentences that begin with a coordinating conjunction. Those are now a widely accepted feature of informal, conversational prose style. Look harder!

 

[Gori the Grey]

The score, through post #46:

Timsup2nothin--17
jackelgull--15
Borachio--11
Civ'ed--7
Phrossack--6
Tolni--6

Bootstoots--inexpressibly deep in the hole, but coming back into good graces

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The rules of the game will be as follows. A first poster (hereafter Poster One) makes a post. It must include one error in grammar, spelling or usage. A subsequent poster, whom we will call Poster Two, identifies the error in Poster One’s post and excoriates Poster One for that error. Style points for particularly colorful vituperation. In the course of his post, Poster Two must him or herself include a grammatical error. A third poster—let us call this poster Poster Three—identifies the error in Poster Two’s post, lambasts Poster Two for his (or her) error, but in doing so, commits some linguistic transgression—to be in its turn identified and condemned by Poster Four. And so on.

Gori the Grey will develop on the fly, and apply with studied inconsistency and arbitrariness, a scoring system of some sort. He stands as (self-appointed) Grammar Führer and one-man court of last resort for all such disputes as might arise in the course of the competition, and reserves the right to invent new rules as necessity or whim may dictate.

Other forms of unctuous self-aggrandizing will be tolerated, and perhaps celebrated, but these may only supplement, never replace, Grammar Nazism.

Since there is no previous post to which I can respond, my castigation must be proleptic. Let me just say, then, that the woefully (sometimes alarmingly) low discursive standards on this site make me doubtful in the extreme that any of you well-nigh-illiterate cretins will be able to identify the error I have included in this post. And no, it is not the sentences that begin with a coordinating conjunction. Those are now a widely accepted feature of informal, conversational prose style. Look harder!

I would list your errors as follows:

Wait, I have found only one. You did however list more than one rule, so your list should indeed have been set off by a colon following follows.

I fear that my glory will be taken by some ninja poster should I try to use excessive verbage, so I must skip the attempt at style points and provide an easy error for whoever follows.

 

[Phrossack]

I would list your errors as follows:

Wait, I have found only one. You did however list more than one rule, so your list should indeed have been set off by a colon following follows.

I fear that my glory will be taken by some ninja poster should I try to use excessive verbage, so I must skip the attempt at style points and provide an easy error for whoever follows.

You should have placed quotation marks around "follows," as you were quoting Gori. Thou art an unlearned rapscallion and a dunce who learned his grammar from an inebriated swineherd. You never learned how to write good.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You should have placed quotation marks around "follows," as you were quoting Gori. Thou art an unlearned rapscallion and a dunce who learned his grammar from an inebriated swineherd. You never learned how to write good.

But I did learn how to write well.

Just not well enough to avoid that unintended error...but now we need a ruling since you did not point out the intentional error.

So, Gori, what do we do about that? It appears to be a grey area.

 

[Bootstoots]

I would list your errors as follows:

Wait, I have found only one. You did however list more than one rule, so your list should indeed have been set off by a colon following follows.

I fear that my glory will be taken by some ninja poster should I try to use excessive verbage, so I must skip the attempt at style points and provide an easy error for whoever follows.

Your last sentence should have ended with "for whomever follows". I think that's the mistake you were trying to make.

Gori, what counts as a grammatical mistake for this thread's purposes? Because there's no official organization making up grammar rules, there's quite a bit of disagreement as to what they actually are. Some people like to frequently split infinitives, and others think that prepositions are the best words to end sentences with. I agree with both, and I also made a third "mistake" in my first sentence, which I made because I thought that generally accepted English grammar rules are stupid and substituted my own.

edit based on my original post: do tense changes in mid-sentence or mid-paragraph count?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It must include one error in grammar, spelling or usage.

I am trodden under the jackbooted heels of better grammar Nazi's than I. I put in a simple spelling error, only to be told that I included more errors accidentally than I did on purpose!

 

[Bootstoots]

Verbiage! It's verbiage, not verbage. Am I right that this was intentional?

 

[Kyriakos]

^You are missing a "(sic)" after your first 'verbiage'.

Unless you are going for the Poe/similar effect of "I am really living what i am typing"

 

[Civ'ed]

You uncapitalized an I, which is truly shameful, and, while alot easier, it's just plain wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

I always do that, cause i am lazy

 

[Gori the Grey]

From phone. Fuller exposition to follow.

If B finds A's deliberate error, e.g well, 3 points for B.
If B finds a more grievous error, 7 points.
If B identifies a less grievous error, e.g quotation marks for follows < verbage, 7 points for A.

Any authority may be invoked. Style points for authority-oneupsmanship. But my judgment final.

Pick up from the missed one in post 7.

 

[gay_Aleks]

So, do we talk openly (i.e bicker like idiots) until someone yells "HA, caught you! You just got Nazi'd!"?

Also, how would we prevent people from saying "well, that was deliberate, good job guys"?

 

[jackelgull]

I am trodden under the jackbooted heels of better grammar Nazi's than I. I put in a simple spelling error, only to be told that I included more errors accidentally than I did on purpose!

You foul demon, destroyer of all that is pure and holy! Your evil arts, they burn they burn. Why did you place an apostrophe of possession on Nazi? And now that I have discovered your game, I shall leave with an error that even a dunce shall find.

 

[Borachio]

I am trodden under the jackbooted heels of better grammar Nazi's than I. I put in a simple spelling error, only to be told that I included more errors accidentally than I did on purpose!

"Nazis". "Nazi's" features what's technically known as the greengrocers' apostrophe.

Good grief! Now I've to think of a deliberate solepcism! This isn't as easy as it looks. I can make unforced errors all the time as a rule... but deliberately, and not so obviously?

(Beaten to it! Now what?)

 

[jackelgull]

"Nazis". "Nazi's" features what's technically known as the greengrocers' apostrophe.

Good grief! Now I've to think of a deliberate solepcism! This isn't as easy as it looks. I can make unforced errors all the time as a rule... but deliberately, and not so obviously?

(Beaten to it! Now what?)

Art thou scheming to plunder my thunder? Ha, but I hath divined the name of thy game- that question mark is out of place. Now I shall throw down my eror in front for all to see, let me see if any shall answer the challenge.

 

[Borachio]

That wasn't my deliberate solecism, though.

I mean, I do know that questions are normally formed by inverting the normal subject and verb order, but is it strictly necessary to do so?

 

[jackelgull]

That wasn't my deliberate solecism, though.

I mean, I do know that questions are normally formed by inverting the normal subject and verb order, but is it strictly necessary to do so?

I don't really know, it is just that your sentence didn't seem like a question to me so I thought the question mark was your forced error.

 

[Borachio]

I don't know either. I've the habit of quite frequently just adding on a question mark at the end of a sentence; imitating the rising intonation of speech, I suppose. I don't know whether it's prohibited in formal writing or not. Or whether this thread should be following strict formal rules. I expect it should... in which case I'm going to be one big fail at it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Replaces post #12:

I offer the following additions and clarifications to the original rules. An earlier poster&#8212;Poster B, let us say&#8212;can indicate that some error identified by the subsequent poster (henceforth Poster C) was not the error deliberately included in Poster B&#8217;s post. If the unintentional error identified by Poster C is one of greater severity than the error that Poster B indicates was intentionally included in his or her post, then Poster C gets 7 points. If the offense that Poster B deliberately included is of greater severity than the one identified by Poster C, then Poster B gets 7 points. (Simply identifying the deliberately-included error nets Poster C 3 points.) This rule is important to the &#8220;competitive&#8221; dimension of Competitive Grammar-Nazism. The idea is for an earlier poster is to slip into his or her post a subtle-but-egregious offense against grammar or usage while tempting opponents to identify and lambaste lesser errors or non-errors.

What counts as a grammatical error? And who is to determine the relative offensiveness of grammatical errors? Well, any non-imbecile who read the original post knows who will render the final verdict in such matters: me! (So you&#8217;d better start combing my old posts to determine my stylistic preferences.) But I am only the court of final appeal. Any poster is welcome invoke any authority as giving grounds for his or her grammatical judgments. Indeed, authority-oneupsmanship may receive style points, if maintained with sufficient hauteur.

To illustrate (and score). &#8220;Verbage&#8221; is a more egregious error than the quotation marks missing from around &#8220;follows.&#8221; Tim gets 7 points. But Phrossack gets the first style points for his faux-Early-Modern insult (6 points). Tim gets 3 for identifying Phrossack&#8217;s &#8220;good.&#8221; Boots gets 3 for identifying Tim&#8217;s &#8220;verbage&#8221; before Tim himself revealed it, but loses 7 for incorrectly asserting that anyone thinks prepositions are the best words with which to end sentences. (Some argue that it is acceptable in certain cases to end a sentence with a preposition, but no one argues that it is positively preferable in all instances). He loses a further 3 points for illustrating his claim using a sentence which it would not be preferable to end on a preposition. He loses untold and untellable style points for daring to so much as hint that grammatical rules are stupid and that Grammar Nazis simply enshrine their own personal preferences as law. That Grammar Nazis in fact do precisely this may be a view held by those at the highest levels of authority, but it is verbotten to breathe it on this thread. Civ&#8217;ed gets 3 for identifying Kyriakos&#8217; uncapitalized I.

I'll catch up with other scoring in time.