Buzz
Everyone makes errors. Perhaps you recently called your lunch 'literally the best burger ever' or submitted a report or essay where every sentence began with a conjunction. It happens to the best of us.
However, not all language blunders are the same. Often, the so-called mistakes corrected by grammar enthusiasts aren’t actually mistakes at all.
10. The Word ‘Literally’ Has Been Misused Since Ancient Times
Many readers find the use of 'literally' as an intensifier to be figuratively the most irritating habit. While it’s meant to indicate something is true in the strictest sense, countless people use it to add emphasis to their statements. This infuriates many. Phrases like 'I’m literally starving' when you’re merely 'a bit hungry' are so universally disliked that some have built entire careers around pointing out this misuse.
However, this criticism overlooks a key fact: The misuse of 'literally' has been happening for hundreds of years.
This isn’t limited to poorly educated individuals. Classic works like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Little Women feature instances of 'literally' being used in ways that would upset modern grammar purists. Even The Great Gatsby, a cornerstone of American literature, includes a moment where the narrator describes Gatsby as 'literally glowing.' Before the 20th century, such usage went unchallenged. It wasn’t until Ambrose Bierce criticized the practice in 1909 that this usage began to decline.
Adding to the confusion, the original definition of 'literally' was 'according to the letter.' As noted by a former editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, using it to describe anything other than individual letters is technically incorrect, even though most grammar enthusiasts now accept this broader usage.
9. Many So-Called Americanisms Actually Began in Britain
Despite our shared history, the differences between American and British English can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. Many Brits take pride in these distinctions and view the use of 'Americanisms' with disdain. For example, writing 'that fall, the baby ate candy while Mom changed his diapers' on a British forum might provoke a flood of eloquent criticism. Yet, every one of those words originally came from England.
While modern British English prefers 'autumn' over fall, 'sweets' over candy, and 'nappy' over diaper, these distinctions didn’t exist in 19th-century English. It was only in the early 1900s that these terms fell out of favor in Britain and became associated with American English.
Other words have faced the same fate. In 2013, British playwright Mark Ravenhill criticized The Guardian for using 'passing' to mean death, claiming it was an Americanism. The Guardian responded by noting that the term was first used by Chaucer and later by Shakespeare. Even the widely criticized term 'soccer' originated from the British abbreviation 'socca,' short for 'association football.'
8. The Word ‘Peruse’ Has Always Signified Casual Reading
Among the list of commonly misused words, 'peruse' is almost guaranteed to make an appearance. While many use it to describe reading or examining something in a relaxed manner, grammar purists argue that its true meaning is nearly the opposite.
In this instance, the majority of people are actually correct in their laid-back interpretation. The Oxford English Dictionary confirms that 'peruse' has been used to denote a casual or superficial examination since the 1500s.
7. Avoiding Split Infinitives Is Objectively Unnecessary
Anyone who has taken a high school English class likely recalls the rule against splitting infinitives. Grammar enthusiasts often argue that Captain Kirk should have said 'to go boldly' instead of 'to boldly go,' claiming that placing an adverb between 'to' and the verb is incorrect. However, this stance shows a misunderstanding of the English language, as splitting infinitives is perfectly acceptable.
Oxford Dictionaries states there’s no valid reason to oppose split infinitives. The issue stems from traditional grammarians applying Latin rules to English. In Latin, infinitives are single words, making it impossible to split them. English, however, doesn’t face this limitation. Additionally, since English isn’t entirely based on Latin, enforcing Latin’s structure is unnecessary.
Moreover, avoiding split infinitives can lead to sentences that are unclear or awkwardly phrased.
6. The Passive Voice Is Perfectly Acceptable
From the moment students enter high school English classes, they are taught that the passive voice is inherently bad. Strunk and White’s renowned style guide famously advises 'use the active voice,' and editors often react strongly when encountering sentences like 'the angry grammar list was written by Morris' instead of 'Morris wrote the angry grammar list.' However, this outright rejection of the passive voice is overly rigid.
Many criticisms of the passive voice stem from misinterpreting Strunk and White. Their guide doesn’t advocate for its complete elimination but rather states: 'This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.' For instance, 'The dramatists of the Restoration are little esteemed today' shifts the focus from modern readers to the dramatists, which may be more effective than 'Modern readers have little esteem for the dramatists of the Restoration.'
Sadly, many grammar enthusiasts overlook the subtlety of this guidance, resulting in the passive voice being unfairly dismissed as incorrect by those who ought to understand better.
5. Understand That British English Permits ‘-ize’
Aside from the intrusion of Americanisms, few things irritate British grammar purists more than seeing 'analyze' instead of 'analyse' or 'organize' instead of 'organise.' However, the Oxford English Dictionary would disagree with this stance.
Contrary to popular belief, the 'ize' endings didn’t originate in America or after the more commonly accepted 'ise' forms. In fact, they were typically British in origin and appeared earlier. 'Organize' dates as far back as 1425, and 'realize' was in use by 1611. Notably, the British spelling 'realise' didn’t emerge until 1755, nearly 150 years after the 'ize' version became common. Similarly, 'authorize' predates 'authorise,' and there are strong etymological reasons to favor the 'ize' ending. Oxford University Press notes that 'ize' aligns directly with Greek verb endings like izo and izein.
The confusion arises because English includes a few words where 'ise' is mandatory, as it forms part of a larger word structure. For instance, 'exercise' and 'compromise' should never be written as 'exercize' or 'compromize.' However, in most cases, 'ize' is just as acceptable as 'ise,' with the added advantage of being universally recognized.
4. Sentences Are Allowed to Begin With Conjunctions
What’s the first thought that comes to mind when you read: 'Because you’re mine, I walk the line'? While most might think of Johnny Cash, a small group is likely upset about the sentence starting with a conjunction. This is often considered one of the most notorious grammar mistakes, but it’s not actually wrong.
Starting a sentence with words like 'and,' 'or,' 'because,' 'so,' or 'also' isn’t a mark of poor grammar—it demonstrates a solid grasp of English. These words connect ideas or clauses, and anyone familiar with books or conversations knows that thoughts can span multiple sentences. As linguist Steven Pinker highlights, words like 'because' are perfectly logical when starting a sentence, especially after a 'why' question. For example, 'Why can’t I have a pony?'—'Because I said so' is entirely correct.
Even in Latin, the source of many misguided grammar rules, beginning a sentence with a conjunction is entirely acceptable. No one can pinpoint where this specific rule came from, and it serves no practical purpose.
3. Embrace Sentence Fragments
Sentence fragments—phrases that lack a complete thought—are often despised in English. Editors frequently remove them from texts, and tools like Microsoft Word flag them with blue underlines. They’re seen as improper and so grammatically incorrect that they’re best avoided. Yet, some of the most celebrated works in English literature make effective use of sentence fragments.
Consider the beginning of The Road by Cormac McCarthy. Right from the start, the book is filled with sentence fragments. Instead of disrupting the flow or diminishing the narrative, they enhance the writing. The text also ignores conventions like quotation marks, but a pedantic rewrite of The Road would strip away much of its beauty.
The same applies to Hemingway. Many of his stories employ sentence fragments not just for their rhythm but to control the reader’s pace, highlighting key moments. When used effectively, sentence fragments can elevate good writing to greatness.
2. Oxford Commas Aren’t Always Necessary for Clarity or Impact
For a specific type of grammar enthusiast, the Oxford comma is akin to a rare botanical specimen: cherished but obscure. This comma, placed before 'and' in a list, generates such fervor that it has even inspired songs. While editors praise it for resolving ambiguity, there are times when it fails to clarify and can even complicate matters.
Consider this sentence, allegedly published in The Times about a documentary titled Planet Ustinov: 'The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector.' Without the Oxford comma, the sentence becomes hilariously unclear, implying Mandela is both an immortal being and a collector of adult toys. However, adding the Oxford comma doesn’t resolve the ambiguity, as seen in this version:
'The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod, and a dildo collector.'
As Stan Carey notes on his Sentence First blog, the sentence remains just as confusing. While Nelson Mandela is clearly not a dildo collector, the revised sentence still leaves open the possibility that he’s an 800-year-old demigod.
1. The Word 'Decimate' Isn’t About Killing One in Ten
Using 'decimate' correctly is often seen as a hallmark of being a grammar expert. Sources ranging from Urban Dictionary to popular list-based sites claim its proper meaning is the Roman practice of 'killing one in ten,' not 'complete destruction.' This distinction is a favorite among grammar purists.
However, as Oxford Dictionaries point out, there’s little evidence that 'decimate' originated with the Romans. While the Romans did punish troops by executing or punishing every tenth soldier, the term was applied later. It actually stems from the medieval Latin word decimatus, meaning 'to tithe.' According to the Grammarist blog, 'decimate' has been used to mean 'annihilate' since the 1500s. Since the 1800s, its original meaning has rarely been used outside discussions of Roman history.
The insistence on linking 'decimate' to the number ten is an example of etymological fallacy. As critics note, if you demand 'decimate' mean 'killing one in ten,' you should also use 'December' to refer to the tenth month, as it originally did.
