Grammar

[ToothDoc]

I hate to hear this one. Me and Jane went to the store. It is not me and Jane......grrrr.

I moved from New Orleans almost five years ago. My new "family" are grammer fanatics. I now mentally correct people when they speak. The one thing they still tease me about is that I say birfday instead of birthday. I had a mild speach impedement when I was a child. The strange thing is that I don't hear any difference when I say it.

toothdoc - who does not and will not ever say fixin to

[DesertRose]

Here is one: Is it "to tie me over" or "to tide me over"? I make fun of my hubby when he says "tide me over", but today i've seen it in writing.

[cricketeen]

It's tide you over - like the swelling waves will carry you over an obstacle.
You can, however, tie on on.

[ArchieComic Fan]

It's tide you over - like the swelling waves will carry you over an obstacle.
You can, however, tie on on.

I've always heard and used "tide me over" in the context that something will "hold" me over until later. Such as, "I ate some cookies to tide me over until dinner" Or, "here's some money to tide you over until you get paid." I guess it does basically mean the same thing as carrying you over an obstacle, I just never looked at it quite like that.

toothdoc - who does not and will not ever say fixin to

Living in the south, "fixin to" is mandatory speech. Okay, it's really not but I'm guilty as charged on that one. It's just the way we roll down here.

[MamaC]

We have two local newspapers and I often see this in their "Living" sections, where the engagement, wedding, anniversary announcements are, etc.

One paper will state that the couple who celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary WERE honored at a surprise reception, blah, blah, blah. Or that the couple WERE married on Feb. 8, 1957. The other paper will state that the couple WAS honored at a surprise reception....or that the couple WAS marriend on Feb 8, 1957.

Someone is confused with the whole WAS/WERE usage. I thought that if the noun was singular (couple) one would use the singular verb (WAS). Or am I mistaken? Obviously, if the noun was plural (couples) the use of the plural verb would apply (were) i.e the couples were seen together in the restaurant.

I frequent a band website and all of the fans from the UK will state that the band WERE in top form at last night's show, etc. Instead of the band WAS in top form.

One exception to this would be involving the word police. I have to agree with "The police were called in to investigate, etc." rather than "The police WAS called in to investigate."

Someone help me out here. It drives me nuts to see one paper state it one way while another states it the other.

[DesertRose]

It's tide you over - like the swelling waves will carry you over an obstacle.

Well then, joke's on me! Thanks Cricket and ACF.

ETA: Grammar mistake in a grammar peeve thread...

[marybethp]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but it's iceD tea, not ice tea.

Drives me crazy!!

I also go crazy when I see are used in place of our.

[ScoutMom]

Someone is confused with the whole WAS/WERE usage. I thought that if the noun was singular (couple) one would use the singular verb (WAS). Or am I mistaken? Obviously, if the noun was plural (couples) the use of the plural verb would apply (were) i.e the couples were seen together in the restaurant.

That's the way I was taught. Noun is singular, use was. Noun is plural, use were.

Of course that was back with the dinosaurs (according to my son!).

[Rattus]

Someone help me out here. It drives me nuts to see one paper state it one way while another states it the other.

They way you understand it is the correct way. Some people don't quite get that a couple, or a band, or a set, or a collection, et al. are single units comprised of more than one item. I think that "police" may be different because the word would actually be a short form for "policemen" or "police officers". I guess. I don't really know.

[MamaC]

Thanks to all who responded. I really thought my way of thinking was correct. I am just really surprised that a newspaper editor somewhere does not understand this concept!