Grammar rant: you’re doing it wrong

Like any true grammar snob, I enjoy reading grammar rants.  I find comfort in the fact that I am not the only person whose blood pressure rises when an adult writes with the grammatical competence of a five-year-old child.  I particularly enjoy grammar rants that are well-written and a bit snarky, like this one that was written by Carolyn Plath.

Unfortunately, decent grammar rants are few and far between.  To support this claim, I’ve compiled statements from several online grammar rants.  What you’re about to read is a mixture of real statements made in real grammar rants I’ve read on the Internet.  You’ll want to look closely–there is at least one blatant grammatical error in every sentence!  Please brace yourself for the world’s most contradictory grammar rant:

Is this how bad the English language has been mauled?  It makes me tear my my hair out.  Is it too much to as for you to use proper punctuation?  Use comma’s where it makes sense.  One period is sufficient, and if your going for ellipsis points they are three periods.  At first, someone smudged the apostrophes off not any longer.  hey have given up. 

This is minor, but it happens enought that it’s starting to drive me crazy.  “There” is can be used in many different ways to relay a position, a state, condition, etc.  “Their” is a pronoun that is reflects ownership by more than one person.  I even emailed the station and asked them where there editors were.  How many teenager are going to hear that and consider it acceptable grammar?


I stress–quite often–that I don’t critique the grammar of the average Joe posting on the Internet.  But if you’re ballsy enough to rant about improper grammar, you should be smart enough to proofread your own damned writing before you share it with the world.  Agreed?

The original grammar rants can all be found here:


Apostrophe abuse!

This is just one picture, but the whole pamphlet was FULL of unnecessary apostrophes. Punctuation abuse is one of my biggest grammar-related pet peeves, so I had to post this if only to let off some steam. Since the picture is so busy, I’ll save you some trouble and point out that the offending words are “racer’s” and “toddler’s.”

On the Soapbox #1: Friends with Benefits

I’m going to try something new on the Grammaniac blog. I’m starting a category of “On the Soapbox” posts, in which I will choose an issue related to words, writing, or grammar, and I will dedicate a post to my true feelings on the subject. Hopefully, it will provide at least a tiny morsel of entertainment to some of my regular readers.

I recently read an article in which two women faced off on whether or not “friends with benefits” is a good idea. Personally, I’ve never been a fan of the concept—if I’m putting time and effort into a man, he’d better be all MINE.

However, a strange thought occurred to me after I read the article. I have several “friends with benefits.”

Why do we have friends? For companionship, for support, for someone with whom to share our interests. Does anyone seriously want to tell me those aren’t considered “benefits”? What’s a friend without benefits? The kind that borrows money and never pays you back? The one who only calls when they need a designated driver, or when they want some action? Oh, wait…that last one IS the friend with benefits. Silly me.

I find it interesting that a regular booty call is dubbed a “friend with benefits,” when the real benefits of friendship have nothing to do with sex. In fact, most FWB situations I’ve seen have ultimately led to the detriment of what was once a real friendship. We should be calling these pseudo-relationships “friends with sexual incentives” or “friends who screw each other.” But friends with benefits? Any real friend is going to provide you with some benefit. And that doesn’t mean you get naked together.

That’s my two cents.