Not trying to be a snob or anything by asking this

---

Posted by mtdr1106

---

Posted by Blu-ize

this type of stuff makes me nuts.

along with aks instead of ask. Oh, and irregardless.

---

i get yelled at about that ALL the time!! it drives my boss CRAZY!!!

---

oh man, I would beat you!!!

If that makes you a snob - then I'll be joining you!

I have to correct that on papers allllllll the time!!!

i can understand why it is done, as they sound similar. IMO i do not think grammar is the most important thing in language (i teach ESL, so this is a touchy topic for me). i mean you know what the meaning is, so what is the big deal? if you sit and take the grammar standpoint then look at the way Americans have butchered the English language?

i can understand why it would be a pet peeve. i have grammar pet peeves, as well. i cant stand when isle is used instead of aisle. that drives me batty.

The spoken word and the written word are two very different things. If I wrote the way I speak casually, I couldn't face myself as an educator. However, when I am in the classroom and when I write things (mainly aside from posts on LIW or the internet at large), I hold myself to a higher standard. I cringe at poor grammar and poor spelling - if that makes me a snob, so be it. I do keep my mouth closed about it though. There is no need to hurt someone's feelings or belittle them.

I think it becomes a problem when grammar isn't corrected at an early age. HOWEVER there come times when no matter how much an educator corrects or directs a child to speak or write 'correctly,' the way the language is spoken at home becomes the way the child speaks (and possibly writes) forever. I see it everyday and sometimes teachers have to choose their battles. I teach special education and most of my students are speech and language impaired. I model to them using proper English but certainly do not expect them to be clones of me or the way I speak. It simply is not natural. I would feel the same was about ESL kids too. If they go home to a place where broken English is spoken(if at all), they would certainly experience confusion thus making it hard to adapt.

Children of my generation did not have devices to check grammar and spelling the way children do now. There was a standard back then, that to me, does not really exist now because of such devices. I even see this in some teachers I work with. They spell many words incorrectly and some of their grammar is abominable. I don't know how some of them made it through college.

So to answer your question Mel, yeah you ARE a snob.

---

Posted by Goldi1021
I think it becomes a problem when grammar isn't corrected at an early age. HOWEVER there come times when no matter how much an educator corrects or directs a child to speak or write 'correctly,' the way the language is spoken at home becomes the way the child speaks (and possibly writes) forever. I see it everyday and sometimes teachers have to choose their battles. I teach special education and most of my students are speech and language impaired. I model to them using proper English but certainly do not expect them to be clones of me or the way I speak. It simply is not natural. I would feel the same was about ESL kids too. If they go home to a place where broken English is spoken(if at all), they would certainly experience confusion thus making it hard to adapt.

---

i see what you are saying about broken english and how they would get confused, but i feel if they are speaking at least in broken english, they will eventually learn more as time goes on (depending on their age). if they are speaking in broken english more and more then that is a good thing as they are developing fluency and confidence in the language. but like you stated previously, spoken and written word is very different, and perhaps ESL speakers can not be compared to native speakers, who know the rules of grammar.

---

Posted by klingklang77

---

Posted by Goldi1021
I think it becomes a problem when grammar isn't corrected at an early age. HOWEVER there come times when no matter how much an educator corrects or directs a child to speak or write 'correctly,' the way the language is spoken at home becomes the way the child speaks (and possibly writes) forever. I see it everyday and sometimes teachers have to choose their battles. I teach special education and most of my students are speech and language impaired. I model to them using proper English but certainly do not expect them to be clones of me or the way I speak. It simply is not natural. I would feel the same was about ESL kids too. If they go home to a place where broken English is spoken(if at all), they would certainly experience confusion thus making it hard to adapt.

---

i see what you are saying about broken english and how they would get confused, but i feel if they are speaking at least in broken english, they will eventually learn more as time goes on (depending on their age). if they are speaking in broken english more and more then that is a good thing as they are developing fluency and confidence in the language. but like you stated previously, spoken and written word is very different, and perhaps ESL speakers can not be compared to native speakers, who know the rules of grammar.

---

I have to laugh as there are many native speakers who do not know the rules of grammar. I still sit with my APA manual from grad school when I am not sure of something. I agree with you when you say ESL kids will learn as time goes on. It is very hard to explain that words are not always written the way they sound!

If enjoying this thread makes me a snob, then so be it! Here are my two pet peeves:

Supposebly
Who/what/where you at? (or ending any sentence for that matter with 'at.')

My first pet peeve has gained so much popularity which is mind blowing to me BECAUSE IT IS NOT EVEN A WORD! It's both mispronounced AND misspelled, although it really isn't difficult to spell if you SAY it correctly. Supposedly.

The second I first learned while living in the Midwest for college. I hoped that it wouldn't spread, but alas, it has and it just makes me cringe when I hear it. To me, it just SOUNDS plain redneck--even ending a sentence with the word 'with' doesn't make me cringe quite as much as 'at.'

Btw, I have to give the educators here a hand. Proper grammar/spelling is where the environment of a child is most influential, in my opinion. You can teach a child over and over the difference between two, to, and too, but if his/her parent doesn't know the correct application, it is a lesson that most likely never be 'learned' because the lesson isn't be enforced in the home.

I hate that too. I can't stand when people write 'spelt' or 'prolly' (for probably). Those are NOT words! I'm a total grammar/spelling snob. It also drives me crazy when people don't know the difference between their/there/they're and to/too.

My friends call me the Grammar Fairy because I am a sucker for proper English. However, they all love to come to me to proof their papers and all other written correspondences - I love it though.

I am also a punctuation snob. I HATE when people use ['s] to pluralize. The freakin' (that's okay, because it's slang ) apostrophe shows possession, not multiple occurrences.

On a side note, I LOVE THE WORD 'SNARF!!!'

'Should of' kills me.

When people say things like that, it really makes me wonder, what do people think they are saying? I mean 'Should have' makes perfect sense. 'Should of' means absolutely nothing. Do people THINK before they speak/write? it makes me crazy!!!!!!

I mean for me, I think about what I'm saying and the meaning behind it. 'Should of' means NOTHING!

---

Posted by marymoon
Do people THINK before they speak/write? it makes me crazy!!!!!!

I mean for me, I think about what I'm saying and the meaning behind it. 'Should of' means NOTHING!

---

I guess I don't think before I speak/write...

I think I say it out of of laziness. It's more of 'should-uv' - my own personal contraction.

---

Posted by marymoon

'Should of' kills me.

When people say things like that, it really makes me wonder, what do people think they are saying? I mean 'Should have' makes perfect sense. 'Should of' means absolutely nothing. Do people THINK before they speak/write? it makes me crazy!!!!!!

I mean for me, I think about what I'm saying and the meaning behind it. 'Should of' means NOTHING!

---

I was thinking the same thing. If the offender was to think about it for even a second, they would realize it is complete jibberish! I chalk it up to laziness, although I am a grammer/punctuation nazi (you're is my biggest pet peeve! and to instead of too!)

---

Posted by itslaurie.

---

Posted by marymoon
Do people THINK before they speak/write? it makes me crazy!!!!!!

I mean for me, I think about what I'm saying and the meaning behind it. 'Should of' means NOTHING!

---

I guess I don't think before I speak/write...

I think I say it out of of laziness. It's more of 'should-uv' - my own personal contraction.

---

IMO, saying it and writing it are two different things

'Should've' and 'Should of' can sound almost exactly alike.

So I can see where people who maybe don't read a lot or aren't that concerned wth grammar might hear it as 'Should of', but I would think when writing it, you would look at it and realize it makes no sense.

I guess I am what some people would call a grammar snob, although I recognize that we are all offenders at one point or another.

I have sort of a sick obsession with grammar and punctuation. I've gotten into debates (and started threads) about the validity of the serial/Oxford comma.

For some reason that's a more compelling topic to me than the latest celeb quickie marriage.

Since we had a snob thread already, let's talk about latin abbreviations.

Why does NO ONE know how to use i.e and e.g correctly?
If you don't know how to use them, don't use them!

---

Posted by BHW

I hate that too. I can't stand when people write 'spelt' or 'prolly' (for probably). Those are NOT words! I'm a total grammar/spelling snob. It also drives me crazy when people don't know the difference between their/there/they're and to/too.

---

this kills me. spelt is a word!!!! actually it is more correct than spelled as it is the british english past tense for spell. they invented the language, we just butcher it.

ETA- wow am i loser...didnt realise this post was so old...

OK - I'm going to take this one step further -

Its 'should have gone' not 'should have went' - as in, 'you should have gone to the GTG yesterday - it was fun'
'should have went' is also poor grammar, as is - 'should of went!'

---

Posted by klingklang77

---

Posted by BHW

I hate that too. I can't stand when people write 'spelt' or 'prolly' (for probably). Those are NOT words! I'm a total grammar/spelling snob. It also drives me crazy when people don't know the difference between their/there/they're and to/too.

---

this kills me. spelt is a word!!!! actually it is more correct than spelled as it is the british english past tense for spell. they invented the language, we just butcher it.

ETA- wow am i loser...didnt realise this post was so old...

---

yes, but it took all of us awful defecting americans to develop a dictionary with which to refer back to for correct spellings as before we did, any spelling was accepted of the whole language. [i know, who told ms. factoid to chime in.] of course, over time, we alter the spelling of things to be more modern [to-nite used to be correct now tonight is.....sorry, i'm a factoid machine.]

i loved this thread then and i loooove it now.