Didn't we talk about grammar rules a few months ago?

In reply to David S. Wallens :

Any way we can *cough* see that list?

Irony is pedants ranting about semantics, when the topic is grammar. 

You know what they say: People in glass houses sink ships.

In reply to Driven5 :

Or perhaps up a tree without a paddle.

Driven5 said:

Irony is pedants ranting about semantics, when the topic is grammar. 

You know what they say: People in glass houses sink ships.

 I noticed that...but, this is the "off topic" thread.

I think it was Woody the Firefighter that mentioned newscasters:  "The home was fully engulfed in flames".

Forget fully, what the hell does engulfed mean?

In reply to 914Driver :

en·gulf

/inˈɡəlf,enˈɡəlf/

verb

past tense: engulfed; past participle: engulfed

1. (of a natural force) sweep over (something) so as to surround or cover it completely.

   "the cafe was engulfed in flames"

   Similar:

   inundate

   flood

   deluge

   immerse

   swamp

   wash out

   swallow up

   submerge

   bury

   envelop

   snow under

   overtake

   overwhelm

   overrun

   • eat or swallow (something) whole.

     "the toad can engulf nestling birds"

Oxford comma.  People don't use it and that is a pet peeve of mine.

And Oxford commas save lives:   "Let's eat grandma."   Or "Let's eat, grandma."

Let’s look at an example from a popular meme about the importance of comma usage:

• With the Oxford comma: We invited the rhinoceros, Washington, and Lincoln.

This is an interesting choice of guests, chosen from some of the most formidable in both the animal and human kingdoms.

• Without the Oxford comma: We invited the rhinoceros, Washington and Lincoln.

Considering that Washington and Lincoln are no longer with us to attend this gathering, the more probable meaning is this one:  That two rhinoceros have been named after Washington and Lincoln. 

Appleseed said:

In reply to David S. Wallens :

Any way we can *cough* see that list?

It’s an internal document and part of the secret sauce that creates GRM. 

jharry3 said:

Oxford comma.  People don't use it and that is a pet peeve of mine.

And Oxford commas save lives:   "Let's eat grandma."   Or "Let's eat, grandma."

I will go to my grammatical death in support of the Oxford Comma.

Many editors, for some reason, seem to frown on it as "unnecessary".  But to me it definitely adds clarity.

But I will share this:

Do you make your own website, printed materials, etc.? Your own style guide might help keep things consistent–like, for example, how do you present common jargon in your world? Do you want to follow the Oxford comma or not? How do you present numbers? (For example, does she have six dogs or 6 dogs? What if she has 256 dogs?) Do you follow AP, Chicago or other? How do you feel about exclamation points?

Call it a living document and change/update as needed. We have one that goes back decades. When necessary, we add or modify things. Part of that doc? Words and phrases that we prefer to avoid. 

If punctuation is grammar, then lack of punctuation drives me insane.  I have gotten to where I will no longer read something that will require 2-3 rereads to make sense if it.  

A couple of other very common pet peeves of mine are dumbassses using breaks instead of brakes for those stopping devices on cars.   Even worse is someone loosing something instead of losing it.   I point it out to people quite often, not to be the grammar Nazi, but to hopefully educate somebody.   They do not like it.  

David S. Wallens said:

Appleseed said:

In reply to David S. Wallens :

Any way we can *cough* see that list?

It’s an internal document and part of the secret sauce that creates GRM. 

Of course. You know this crew would latch onto that and subvert the ever loving Hell out of it.