LUSANDA FUTSHANE
Grammar Nazis: the dictionary-bashing, self-appointed gatekeepers of language. The ones who point out concord errors in Aerosmith lyrics and who are willing to give a complete stranger at a urinal an impromptu lesson on the difference between “who” and “whom.” In today’s text messaging, LOL-ing generation, grammar Nazis have become the enemy of the general public (although it is probably safe to say that no one with “Nazi” in his/her moniker has ever really been well liked). People go out of their way to avoid confrontation with them, much like telemarketers or tax collectors. No one wants to be reminded exactly how inept they are when it comes to communication, but someone has to do it or before we know it, language will eventually become nothing more than sighs, grunts, bubblegum pops, hair flips and eye-rolls. So, in honour of grammar Nazis, Perdeby brings you five words and phrases that people need to stop using incorrectly.
Literally
Really? You could literally eat a house? That must be a very profitable talent to have, considering the inordinate sums of money that the construction industry spends demolishing old buildings. Why are you not rich yet? This is the type of internal response every grammar Nazi has when someone suggests that he/she could achieve something supernaturally impossible and simply append “literally” at the end for dramatic effect. Instead of saying it aloud, the grammar Nazi will respond with a “Really?” through gritted teeth.
While we’re sure that no one needs counselling on the difference between figurative and literal speaking, people still think that using “literally” when you actually mean “figuratively” somehow qualifies whatever statement you just made as impressive. It probably doesn’t. Your hunger won’t be in doubt if you clarify that you are only figuratively trying to eat a house. In fact, millions of people might thank you – literally.
Touché
Who would have thought that fencing jargon could cause such confusion? “Touché” is French for “touch” and is used in fencing to acknowledge a hit from an opponent. In conversation, you say “touché” when someone else has made a valid point during an argument, thereby “acknowledging a hit”. It does not mean “voilà”. It does not mean “damn”. It certainly does not mean “awesome”. So when people say that their pets have passed away, please do not say “touché”.
When you learn a new word or phrase, you tend to get excited. You want to use it as much as possible so that you can impress people with your fancy vocabulary. Fair enough. But maybe you should look the word up instead of assuming you have figured it out after encountering it only once. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.
You’re versus your
If you don’t see this error at least five times when you scroll through your Facebook news feed or your Twitter timeline, then congratulations, you know all the best people. You would think that this is something we would all have covered in primary school. It seems simple enough, yet there is no shortage of people who still believe “your” is an acceptable substitute for “you’re”.
It takes so much effort to type out “you’re”.There’s that annoying apostrophe you have to hold down the shift key for and then you have to add an entire extra letter at the end. No one has time for that, right? Wrong. Especially when you end up with confusing statements like “Your sexy.” My sexy what? And just like that the mood is dead and no one will want to sext with you ever again. These are the kinds of benefits you miss when you’re lazy with your grammar.
Per se
First, note the spelling. Per se, not “per say.” Secondly, never use “per se”. (It will make you sound pretentious.) Per se is Latin for “by itself” and is more of a legal term than a feature of regular conversation. “As such” is probably a better, less pedantic substitute.
But that is not the issue. The issue is when someone has insisted on using it, but not correctly. To wit: “I don’t hate tequila, per se. I just don’t like it.” Note how you have said absolutely nothing with that sentence. Compare that with “I don’t hate tequila, per se. I just hate the way I feel the morning after drinking it.” That is how it should be used. All of a sudden “as such” becomes a simpler, more manageable option.
Should have, could have, would have
There’s no quicker way to get a grammar Nazi bounty on your head than using one of these. What do they mean? No one knows, not even the people who use them. “Should have,” “would have” and “could have” become “should’ve,” “would’ve” and “could’ve” when contracted. Phonetically, you could say that “should’ve” sounds like “should of”, but surely when you type it out you realise how wrong it sounds?
Are people so preoccupied with getting the message across that they couldn’t be bothered with how it gets there? “You knew what I meant” is the popular excuse. Unfortunately, that’s not how communication works.
The rule of thumb with language is to do your homework. Look words up when you’re confused or even slightly unsure about what they mean. Read something other than your textbooks and You magazine. Do not assume that musicians or the Kardashians are authorities on language. And remember: grammar Nazis aren’t born, they’re made.
Photo: Eleanor Harding
