Grammer Nazi's NEEDED!

pr4l

pr4l

Member
Hey NS, my professor is claiming that there is a grammatical error in this paragraph, and if we can identify it we can get some extra points. Does anyone know what it is? My guess is the, "aimed at parents of autistic, or potentially autistic, children." should be, "aimed at parents of autistic, or potentially autistic children."

Any help?!

StartFragment

One health epidemic at the forefront of public consciousness

is autism, a brain disorder that impairs a person’s ability to communicate,

socialize, and participate in group behavior. Often surfacing by the time a

child is three years old, the symptoms of autism include stifled speech and

difficulty in displaying joy or affection. According to a 2007 study by the

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1 in 150 American

children are autistic—a

staggering number that makes autism the fastest-growing developmental disorder

in the United States. Since the release of these findings, nonprofit

organizations across the country have been working to raise public awareness of

this national health crisis. The largest of these organizations, Autism Speaks,

recently launched a multimedia campaign aimed at parents of autistic, or

potentially autistic, children.

EndFragment

 
I'm thinking that's what it is. Or did the tab not transfer over when you copied the paragraph. I think OP's idea is wrong because if you add onto the ending of that sentence it makes sense. do you know what i mean.

The largest of these organizations, Autism Speaks, recently launched a multimedia campaign aimed at parents of autistic, or potentially autistic, children.[/b]

[/b]

to[/b]

[/b]

The largest of these organizations, Autism Speaks, recently launched a multimedia campaign aimed at parents of autistic, or potentially autistic, children who love partaking in the act of devouring a delicious taco every once in a while.[/b]

[/b]

Obviously my specific example doesn't really make sense, but I'm eating a taco right now and you get my point.
 
Absolutely not. You never join an independent clause to a dependent clause with a semicolon.

OP: ********nazis

you do not need an apostrophe to make a word plural.
 
There's the error right there. Change "that" to "which." This is fairly advanced grammar, and would be caught by only the best editors. Most people do not even know what relative pronouns or restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers are. If you feel the need to repay me, please make a donation to the NRA.
 
not sure if this is grammatical, but i was taught numbers under 100 should be spelled out. so my input, probably wrong, is to make "1" read "one"
 
Yep. If you speak more than just English this becomes more obvious, other languages treat this much more strictly
 
you don't need/shouldn't have a comma in this sentence.

there are plenty of mistakes in the paragraph, not just one.
 
I believe you are confusing grammar and style. Stylistically the paragraph is far from perfect. I would not have started a sentence with Often, would not have said "the largest of these," and several other things. I could do a rewrite of the paragraph and make it better, but the grammar, for the most part, follows basic English rules. The that/which instance is what his professor is looking for.

Oh, and in case anyone is going to get cute and correct my responses, know this: I do not write my responses on NS in accordance with every grammatical rule and convention. This is not the place for that, and I rather enjoy coming across as a moron on here quite often. I will assure you though, my technical writing is beyond reproach. I've put a great deal of effort into perfecting the spoken and written word. It's just what I geek out on.
 
Don't worry; I'm not confusing style and grammar. There are a lot of commas that seem questionable. But I suck at the technical side of things; I just write by ear. I'd have to go look up the rules to be sure, so i'll take your word that it's right.
 
It should be "1 in 150 American children is autistic"This is because the sentence must be grammatically correct without the prepositional phrase "in 150 American children", i.e. "about 1 is autistic"
 
I think it's actually correct the way it is, not sure.. However, if it said "1 OF 150 American Children are autistic" that would be definitely incorrect and you'd be right. I think "in" causes it to refer to the group rather than the one autistic kid. But again I'm not sure
 
epidemic at the forefront of public consciousness is autism, [/b]

[/b]

i think there should be a colon there instead of a comma[/b]
 
hahahahahaha, everybody tightening up on their gramer, and iflip that was extremely impressive, do you write at all?
 
the only grammatical error i can see is a lack of consistency with the usage of a hyphen. i'm not sure which time is technically correct to use it, but the paragraph uses it and then at a similar pause neglects to use it. the most important thing about correct punctuation use is continuity throughout the piece, but if your teacher is looking for the textbook correct employment then i'm not sure
 
I do write. I also edit semi-professionally. And no, I'm definitely not going to share any of my writing with NS. I do generally enjoy helping people with grammar and writing. It's amazing how many people profess to be grammar "experts," yet all they do is respond "I'm doing well" when someone asks them how they are doing. My default answer is to ask them to list at least seven forms of the word "lay," then give an example for the correct usage of each. If you care to try (sans Google), give these a shot:

lie, lay, lain, laid, laying, layed, lays, lies, lying

Oh, and for the lulz...someone recently started a writing cult on NS. I joined. One of the threads was a guy asking for a critique of his writing. I critiqued it. I got banned from the cult. Pretty funny. If someone is serious and wants help with writing or editing, just PM me.
 
Well I just brought Dragon speak for my computer So I may talk out one of my final papers and then pay you to edit it i Actually just talked this out right now
 
That's a pretty funny story. I'll give this a shot...

1. I lie on my mat in the yoga room.

2. I lay down my mat before doing yoga.

3. When I entered the room, many other mats had already been lain.

4. Jim laid (more common form of layed) his mat down next to mine.

5. Other people are laying their mats down right now.

6. Sally lays her mat down after me.

7. Sally lies down afterwords.

8. Everyone in the room is now lying.

Interested to see what I got wrong.
 
A few notes...While it IS grammatically ok to end a sentence with a preposition, it is still poor form in many/most cases. Your sentence #3 would be much better as "Many mats had already been lain down when I entered the room." #7...check words/wards. Also, "afterward" is preferable to "afterwards." While not grammatically incorrect, omitting the s is better form. This becomes a bigger issue when we talk about toward/towards. For example, towards specifically denotes physical movement. Toward can mean working toward a solution. However, toward may also be used to denote physical movement, such as in the case of "I am running toward my car." It is safe to simply always use toward, and never towards. The same goes for forward, backward, etc.

I can't really correct or edit all of your eight examples. I need to know context to know if they are right/wrong. #1 would be correct if you are talking in the present tense, but if you are talking about your past routine then it would be incorrect. Lie is generally present tense, whereas lay is past tense. #3 works, other than my note above. I like #4 and #5. I do not like #6 because lies is present tense, and your sentence structure leads me to believe you are talking about the past. #8 needs another word for lying to attach itself to. In its present state it is awkward, and would only work if your lying means fibbing. Interesting food for thought at least!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top