Frieda, I recall the "at" argument very well. With some southerners, I still lapse into that.

I grew up in the deep south and we used to say, "Hey", instead of "Hello." I had a traditionalist, die-hard, next door, elderly neighbor who, every time I greeted her, would come back at me with, "Hay is for horses."

As for the "lie/lay" issue, I think Americans have lost that war. More often than not, I hear the inappropriate usage in public, from all classes. I would not be surprised to see dictionaries changed over this one.

I no longer worry about can/may or shall/will. Life is too short....

I was blessed with a mother was a grammarian; I had the good fortune to have an excellent grammar teacher for two years in high school; and then I had the department head in English 101 and 102 in college, who also wrote for local newspapers and who was death on grammar and spelling.

My best hint for lie/lay and sit/set (from my mother) is that lay and set mean to place something, while lie and sit mean to be at rest; i.e., you lay something down and it lies there or set something down and it sits there. On the travel forum I frequent, practically everyone writes that they like to "lay" on the beach. Eggs, anyone?

One other hint is a way not to misuse the subjective case following prepositions such as "for Tom, Dick, Harry, and I" or "with him and I." The trick is to leave out all the other names and use what you would use naturally, which, of course, would be "for me" or "with me."

You all probably know all this; but I spent 45 years as a secretary, and I can tell you I have quietly corrected multitudes of grammar errors over the years (and no doubt missed several, too).

was/were in the subjunctive. It grates when someone says "If I was you..." It is impossible to be someone else, therefore, were is correct. The subjunctive indicates the impossible, as my Spanish prof put it. "If wishes were horses..."

Decades ago when I first began writing engineering procedures a big deal was made over shall/will. I'm thinking shall was demanded, but for the life of me I don't remember why.

I could make a case that to lie on a beach is not restful. In fact I'd say that one lays oneself just so and moves at regular intervals to either maximize or minimize the sun.

Infer/Imply
Ensure/Insure/Assure

I learnt (and there's one for you Americans *g*) that shall was used for the first person, singular and plural, will for the rest. So 'I shall' and 'We shall' but you, he and they will.

I hear and read increasing the past participle being used on its own.
"He sung my favourtie song'.
Also brang as a past participle of brought.

Interestingly, 'set' is rarely used as a verb in Australia (and I suspect Vee will agree with me). I would use 'put' instead.
"I put the book on the table'.

Of course there is the greengrocer's apostrophe, which seems to have migrated into all shops and lots of advertising in general.

I particularly dislike 'these ones' and 'those ones' as being tautological, but I don't know that either is grammatically incorrect.

Prefixes can be a minefield too. Someone said 'unorganised' to me yesterday; I would always say 'disorganised'.

Carolyn, 'between you and I' is a crazymaker for me. I think many people really do think it's correct. A copy editor once changed my 'between you, me, and the fencepost' -- the only way I had ever heard the phrase -- to 'between you, I, and the fencepost'. I told her it sounded wrong to me, but I had to go along because I didn't have time to prove it. But at least she allowed me to use the serial comma and 'between' instead of 'among'! Some copy editors are sticklers about the between/among thing.

Woodnymph, I got into the "Hey" habit in the south. One person, though, told me that the reason it is objectionable is it sounds abrupt, lazy, and rude. I never thought so; I thought it sounded friendly if said cheerily. Shouted "Hey, you!" would sound rude to me, but it's the matter of tone not the word itself that offends me. The 'hay is for horses' expression never made sense to me because hey/hay aren't spelled alike.

Kath, how do Australians prepare a table for a meal? Americans 'set the table' and most Britons I've known 'lay the table'.

In American broadcasting journalism there's a famous dictum: Only Peter Jennings could say "shall" as a news anchor on American television. That's because he was Canadian. American broadcasters are advised to avoid 'shall' altogether.

Ah, Frieda, you've got me there, we do indeed 'set the table', although 'lay the table' was used in the 'olden days' LOL.

Frieda - Growing up, if we asked "where is my ball 'at'?" We were always told "behind the at." I'm not sure what that meant, but it taught me not to put "at" at the end of a question?

That/who - relative pronouns

He was the one who did the dirty deed.
He was the one that did the dirty deed.

I was taught that "who" is used when referring to a person and "that" is used for inanimate things, living things other than people and collective nouns, even when the latter are made up of people. My impression is that this distinction is dying out. Most people say and write "that" for all.

Lydia, doesn't make it right though, does it? Grammarians of the world, unite!

Another ubiquitous usage is impact as a verb, e.g., ". . . impacted the bottom line."

Heh! Lydia, I must have absorbed part of that rule -- though I don't recall it being taught to me -- because I do use 'who' for people and 'that' for nonliving things. However, I often personify animals, such as my dogs and cats, and will give them the 'who' privilege. I think that's all right as it's a matter of style, demonstrating the closeness between my animals and me. A pedant perhaps would disapprove, but I figure that if I'm talking or writing about my animals I don't always need to be formal.

I just noticed that I used that dratted 'between' again! Well, it sounds right to me. I mean, the action is not shared among the animals and me, but between each of them and me. Oh, pffft!

I have always liked this saying:
Know the rules of grammar so you can break them whenever you wish.

My trouble is the rules change faster than I do. :-)

Kath, I meant to comment above about 'these ones/those ones': I think I've only heard that phrasing from either Irish or Australian acquaintances. I don't think it's common among Americans. However, we do say "these things" and "those things" -- such as when pointing at some objects on a near shelf or other objects on a shelf farther away -- instead of just these and those, which should be sufficient in most cases. Come to think of it, many Americans would stretch the phrasing even more by saying "these things here" and "those things there." I guess they want to make doubly and triply sure which ones and things are indicated! Is that the tautology you mean or am I missing something? :-)

Frieda, that is just what I mean *g*. Interesting about the Irish connection. I suspect that Australia has a much smaller percentage of Irish immigrants than the US, but it is often said that the habit of saying H as 'haitch' goes back to Irish Catholic educators. It is quite common in Australia (and another thing that grates on me).

Frieda, I have been reading this thread with some interest because I never had any grammar lessons at school so have to rely on what sounds correct.
It was therefore necessary for me to ask my husband about auxiliary verbs (I had never heard of them) and he suggests I very politely mention to you that auxiliary verbs, either modal or primary, do not take a tense.
If anyone is interested (or like me didn't know until last night) the primary aux's are: be have do.
The modal aux's are: will shall would should may might can could must ought.

Kath, I think Australian grammar is the same as that of the UK (although both a little frayed round the edges).
We 'lay' the table. I hate the use of haitch for the letter 'h', especially when it is NOT followed by the 'h'!
"'arry went to 'ampstead, 'arry lost is 'at"
Other noticeable Irish 'English' pronunciations are alar-rum for alarm, col-yoom for column.
Over here the saying is "between you, me and the gate post".

I can't give any useful wrinkles to help keep grammar in place but I wonder if the incorrect use/placing of words is still a them and us issue?
But, as I live in an area where the 'natives' say " 'im d' do" meaning "He did" or "'er should say" for "She said" and my own children (adults now) still say "Me and him . . ." It is a wonder that I am able to string a sentence together. :-)

friedag-I learned the prepositional form for a shared action, space, interval or time is "between" if two people or things are involved, "among" if there are more than two. But the rule is bent if some of the "more than two" can be lumped together into a group. One person or thing plus one group is equal to two, so the preposition is "between."

Your example of "between you, me, and the fencepost" is correct (your editor was wrong) because all of the action involves two people - the fencepost cannot interact. Besides, it is an old saying meant to be humorous and should not be changed even if it is grammatically questionable. The editor was being too serious!

Veer-auxiliary verbs are the so-called "helping verbs" and there are many of them. The helping verbs do express person, number, mood or tense. I just checked Merriam-Webster. Maybe the term "auxiliary verb" differs outside the U.S. and if so we could be talking at cross purposes.

All the errors mentioned above tend to make my skin crawl, also. Not that I haven't been guilty of many of them myself. But the one that I have the hardest problem having to hear is "I seen..." This error is ubiquitous. Anytime a witness to some event is interviewed on the news, they begin, "Well, I seen..." I want to shake them and say, "Didn't you hear a thing your English teacher said?"

And here's the scary part- If enough people make the same mistake long enough, the language changes and the error bcomes correct!

Depressing thought.

Sadly Froniga, you are right. I spoke the English language as I heard it on the BBC news programmes in the 1940s onwards. It was expected to be perfect. I recall too the radio 'lessons for schools' we had to listen to. The 'me or I' trick of dropping the names before to get it right has stuck with me.
Now, how can we expect children to speak correctly when they do not hear the proper pronunciations and grammar?
It is a losing battle. I do a lot of shouting at the TV!

Frieda, I beg to differ with you re "these ones" and "those ones". It is very commonly heard in the South, in the U.S. But then, a lot of Irish did settle in that region early on, in Colonial days. For whatever reason, a Scottishism survives as well in the deep South: I grew up asking for a "wee bit of cake", etc. I still hear the substitution of "wee" for "tiny" or "little bit".

So true that if enough people change it, it will become the preferred erroneous usage, as in lie/lay. I fear that has occurred already with "orient" and "orientate" (which I hate).

Aha! Lydia, it's good to know that instinctively I was right all along about 'between' and 'among'. 'Among' never confused me, but I've been tussling with 'beneath' for nigh unto forty years when I've known there are more than two people or things, yet 'among' didn't sound right. I never caught on to the grouping thing to make a singular collective noun. If my English teachers ever covered this aspect, I must have been dozing and didn't hear. The formula 1 + 1 = 2 is a nifty way to remember it -- I just wish I had known it years ago. Thank you!

Vee, it's my fault regarding the misunderstanding about auxiliary verbs. I should have given the American meaning of the term and given examples. I didn't realize (or forgot, as I am wont to do), though, that it is possibly different or has a more specific definition in the UK. Lydia is right that auxiliary verbs will indicate tense. Using may/might as I cited in my first post:
He may do something now. - present
He may have to do something later. - future
He might have done something an hour, a year, or an aeon ago. - pastYet, more and more often, people are saying and writing: He may have done something an hour, a year...ago. It's as if they have no knowledge that 'might' is the past tense form of 'may'.

Woodnymph, it could very well be true that the 'these ones' and 'those ones' construction is common in the south, but curiously I have seldom run across it myself in South Carolina, south Alabama, south Mississippi, south Louisiana, and southeast Texas. Perhaps I haven't known enough southerners of Irish extraction -- just African, Anglo, Cajun, Creole, Czech, German, Italian, Mexican, Native American, Norwegian, Polish, Scots, and Swedish, among others. :-) Southerners have never been a homogeneous group, as you well know but contrary to outside popular perception. But you're right: I should have said that in my experience I haven't found the phrasing to be common.

Ha! Are we all sounding a wee bit set in our ways? Language changes, inexorably. If it didn't, it would lose its usefulness, stagnate, and wind up a dead pool.

Frankly, I'm happy to see some grammar constraints that were artificial to begin with eliminated. Examples: The split infinitive phobia that was started by some dingbat American grammar writer who tried to make English grammar fit the pattern of Latin grammar. What perplexes me is why so many educators (even in the UK) accepted this preposterous idea and then inflicted it on generations of students, some of whom are still being straitjacketed with it?
Never start a sentence with a conjunction.
Never end a sentence with a preposition.

You are welcome, friedag. I am pleased that I could help. It confused me for a long time, too, until someone kindly gave me that tip.

"Set in (my) ways" - yes, I am afraid so. Language change does depress me sometimes, but only when I feel left behind. I do not like many of the new shortened words, e.g. apps, vacay for vacation. The lengthening of words is a baffling trend, isn't it, woodnymph 2? I also dislike orientate and provocate.

friedag, did I hear correctly that fear of the split infinitive is what caused Chief Justice Roberts' flub at the swearing in of President Obama?

Lydia, I hadn't heard about the Chief Justice's botched oath-giving being associated with split infinitives, or the fear of them. I googled and found that it is Steven Pinker's theory. Sounds plausible to me, but who knows for sure -- except Roberts, though he might never admit it.

vacay for vacation Good grief! That and Kath's "brang" have me groaning. I've heard for years the saying "Dance with him who brung ya," which is a witticism, I think, that's twice as tickling to me now that I notice the correct! use of the relative pronoun.

Bring/brang/brung is just the sort of logical trap that ESL speakers/writers could fall into -- and it's entirely forgivable for them...and native speakers under about the age of four. But if it's the newest of the regularization attempts, it makes me huffy. I learned the irregular forms, so I would appreciate the courtesy of them remaining irregular!

The trouble is, Frieda, as I mentioned above, native speakers can't really manage sing/sang/sung, so it is twice as annoying. I bet none of them have the decency to say 'I had brung it'! LOL

Farther/Further. I never know which to use. Do you say: "I don't wish to travel any further down that road."? Or would you use "farther"?

One little trick which I taught my grandkids is....check your sentence for a logical sound when you're not sure:

Ex.: Her and I went to the store.

Check: Her went to the store.
I went to the store.

Correction: She and I went to the store.

It seems that many make the mistake of the wrong prounouns together and this easy check really makes it simple.

Another:

He and me went to the store.

Check: He went to the store.
Me went to the store.

Correction: He and I went to the store.

Woodnymph, it depends. (ESL students hate 'it depends'!!)

I would say: "I don't wish to travel any farther down that road," if I intend it to mean an actual physical distance, such as a few yards or a few miles.

However, I would say: "I don't wish to travel any further down that road," if I mean I will not continue to pursue the goal or endpoint to which that road is leading. I think of farther as tangible (in measurement), further as abstract.

I'm not sure if I made up my own rule or someone actually told me how to distinguish farther/further. I've noticed, though, that many people don't always distinguish them, though perhaps they do more in writing than in speaking. Come to think of it, I am more apt to say "further," even when I mean farther. I think it is easier to pronounce -- to say "farther" can interrupt the flow of my words -- so perhaps that is what is going on with many people. :-)

It just occurred to me that further also means 'additional', as I tried to think of further examples to illustrate the differences between farther/further.

Good one, Woodnymph!

I don't use 'farther' at all.

Kath, that way you never have the dilemma of which to use! But when you run across farther -- as I'm sure you have in your reading or listening to North Americans, particularly -- do you automatically know what is meant, from context or some other way?

I've been reading more about farther/further. It seems they have always been pretty much interchangeable -- now why were two so similar words used to mean essentially the same thing? It has only been within the past one hundred years that they have begun to diverge, and it's that divergence that I (and others) have apparently picked up. The dictionaries validate the way I understand it (as I described above): farther is taking over the meaning of 'distance' while further remains the choice when there is "no notion of distance" (according to Merriam-Webster which gives this example: Our techniques can be further refined) or when the meaning is 'addition'. Further is also a sentence modifier: Further, the customers were not satisfied with the new style of service.

Something else I notice about farther/further is the pronunciations. Speakers who do not pronounce internal and ultimate /r/s sound to me as if they are saying for farther "FAH thuh," same as they pronounce father, and "FUH thuh" for further.

What an interesting pair of words!! Thanks again, Woodnymph, for bringing them up.

Frieda, my very large and detailed English-English dictionary agrees with you.
Farther and further are interchangeable but in 'careful usage' farther is preferred when referring to literal distance and further is regarded as more correct for figurative senses denoting greater or additional amounts of time etc.

As to the pronunciation, to me farther and Father sound just the same. Are they said differently in the US?

Frieda, I am waiting for you to have a go at the 'Classics Quiz'.

Frieda, on consideration I would probably use farther for distance, but I don't know that it would really impinge on my conscious that much.
I'm with Vee (as usual) 'farther' is exactly the same as 'father'. "Further' is like animal 'fur' (not much 'r' happening though *g*) with 'thu' on the end.
(Senses more youtube coming up hahaha).

I don't agree about the same pronunciation for farther and father -- no surprise! To me, it is the English "intrusive R" rearing its head again. ;-)

By the way, most Americans do not pronounce "rather" to rhyme with "father". (Our "rather" is instead "wrath-er.")

For myself, I pronounce "Father" to rhyme with "water."

Mary, never in a million years could an English person get 'Father' to rhyme with 'water'! And 'our' word 'wrath' is more-or-less said as 'wroth'.
The only relation I can rhyme 'water' with, is 'daughter'.
So how do you pronounce 'farther'?

Kath, is it the same with you?

Interesting pronunciations, Mary. Yours are different from mine, which are, I suppose, of the west-of-the-Mississippi sort. I (and most American westerners) pronounce rather with the hard /th/ of than, the, though, not the soft /th/ of thorn, thick, thin...wrath. Does your wrath end with the hard /th/?

I definitely don't rhyme rather with father. Neither do I rhyme father with water. My "water" rhymes with cotter (the closest real word that I can think of at the moment).

Vee, I doubt any transcription will give you the proper idea of how Americans pronounce farther, so I suggest you visit a site with audio of American pronunciations. I can attempt it but I doubt it will do any good. However, here goes:

Think of the letter R and how Americans say it (the letter itself) -- It is "Ar" with the tongue curled. Pirates supposedly say "Argh!" an awful lot -- the beginning of their word is the same as the American pronunciation of the letter R (not to be confused with the sound of every R, though -- initial, internal, or ultimate).

The English I know tend to pronounce the letter R as "Ah" without curling the tongue. This is important because it is one of the primary reasons American English sounds different from English English. This one letter causes more problems and misunderstandings, I think, than any other. The English (and some American-English speakers) who cannot curl their tongues for R, or even imagine that sound, will not comprehend this, I'm afraid.

Okay, here's how I would transcribe farther, keeping in mind that many (most) Americans definitely pronounce the R in the position of the way it is spelled.
FAR-thur -- the AR sound is the same as in the pirate's "argh!" The /th/ is hard as in thou, and the /ur/ sounds just about identical to the Cockney pronunciation of her: 'er.Maybe that will help, but I think it's probably a matter of being very familiar with American pronunciations as compared to those of English- or British- or Australian-English. Pronunciations really need to be heard, not transcribed, but transcription will give a pretty good idea if both transcriber and reader are familiar with the same sounds and conventions.