Alright, GrammarBots, I didn’t say anything when you defaced the “closed do to fire” sign at our local Sticks ‘N’ Stuff. I didn’t say anything when you trashed the high school’s “charater counts” message. I didn’t even raise a fuss when you insisted that the University of Maryland retract all letters sent to “ADDMITTED STUDENTS.” But enough is enough.
Stop acting, like grammar is, “important” to our: language. Lets-be-honest, grammar does’ not effect the way we communicate: and its not like anybodies’ ever misconstrued the meaning of a sentence, due to incorrect grammar. If you ask me, alot of these “literary-types” – teachers and journalist’s “for” example – just use grammar two sabotage the rest of us. But, teachers, its, not my fault your underpaid. And journalists, its’ not my fault you’re profession is dead. Wer’e all struggling right now; I know – my cable is out.
I think, its high-time we updated; our language too account “for” modern convenience, colloquial usage, and laziness. English, is, incredibly, complicated – some say its the most, difficult language to-learn. There are to many rules and to many exceptions. Whose going too remember them all? And this is the language being pushed as the “universal second language”? This language that cant even, decide between that and which? We should be thankful which French is also an official language of the Olympics otherwise noone would no what was going-on.
This is why Im proposing a complete overhaul, of the English-language. 12 Useless English Grammar Rules That Should Be Eliminated (because most of us seem to think they don’t exist anyway):
- The rule that “alot” is not a word. Who’s would disagree with ‘this’? Does it really, matter; weather I use a word which is made up as long as its easier? Half of us already think “alot” is just another synonym for “a lot” anyway.
- The comma. Its antiquated awkward and cumbersome and as such should become an optional piece of grammar. There shouldn’t be a penalty for those of us who are lazy just don’t care or can’t remember right?
- The pronunciation of “loose.” Who would, invent, a language where “loose” and “lose” are pronounced differently and have different meanings’s but are spelled so – similarly? It would be easier to use them interchangeably, as most … of us already do.
- “Their” and “They’re.” Who can keep “there,” “they’re,” “their” and all there: spellings apostrophes, and meanings straight? Their needs to be one correct-spelling, and since no-one can spell “their” (“i” before “e” except after, what?), and apostrophe’s’ are so difficult, let’s just use: “there.”
- “Have” after “should,” “could,” and “would.” My first instinct was that we should, except “should of,” “would of,” and “could of” as synonyms for “should have,” “would have,” and “could have.” Than I thought, lets just make-it idiot … proof and, add “shoulda,” “coulda,” and “woulda” to the language.
- Possessive’s. The French have it right – no possessives’s, no worrie’s. Nobody: get’s apostrophes’, and nobody gets’s possessive’s, so why force it? We just have to, get used to a new sentence structure. Examples: Are you going to the sleepover of Danielle tonight? Have you eaten at the Pizzeria Belonging to Tony?
- “Than.” This one’s a no-brainer. First of all, “than” is awkward. Second, there’s’ just, no-way-to-tell when you should, use “than” and, when, you should use “then.” Beside’s, if we eliminate “than,” would anyone really notice?
- The dangling apostrophe – God would of never named his son, Jesus, if he knew English language rule’s. Is it Jesus’s sandals, Jesus’ sandals or Jesuses’ sandals? I think, we all need some divine intervention, with the “s apostrophe.” It seems, “like” a sophisticated rule, but using it somehow always makes you feel stupid.
- “Effect” and “affect.” If interchanging these words, has such a negative; affect on the language, than Webster’s shouldn’t of made them so similar. These should be replaced: by “aeffect” [pronunciation: however you want].
- “Its.” If we’re eliminating possessives’ anyway, this one should be: the first to go. It doesnt’ even fit the rules for possessive’s. Its blatant sabotage, and is always confused with “it’s,” which is a riddle in itself.
- The meaning of “who’s” and “whose” (whatever that may be). Under these: new-rules’, “who’s” should be used only, to mean “who is,” rather than acting as a possessive. “Whose,” on the other, hand, should be used, to mean “belonging to” or “of whom,” rather than being just a second way to say “who is.”
- The “e” and the apostrophe in you’re. Is it, “your welcome” or “you’re welcome”? Who could no? And, why, should we, be expected to know?
I just don’t’ understand: why we should learn useless, ancient rules when … we can just, make things’ easier for ourselves. Irregardless of how you feel about it, you can’t deny that, you probably could care less about good grammar. So why not give this a try? Its not like we have, anything to loose.