+0
I know of at least seven grammatical errors that I think are both widespread but easily fixable issues in both colloquial and written usage. I'd like to share these errors, and their solutions, with you today.

1) Incorrectly constructed parrallel structure (emphasis on the infinitive).
One of the more unusual aspects of English grammar is that we express infinitives using two words, to + conjugated verb. Commonly, the "to" part of the infinitive is ignored in parallel structure. Here are a couple example sentences incorporating this easily fixable grammatical error:
A. WRONG: I like to run and play. RIGHT: I like to run and to play.
B. WRONG: She said she's going to call us soon, ask us what time the movie is, and meet us there.
RIGHT: She said she's going to call us soon, to ask us what time the movie is, and to meet us there.

2) Split infinitive
This error is both widespread and easy to fix. Basically, just avoid inserting words between the "to" and the conjugated verb when expressing an infinitive. Here is an example:
WRONG: I want to quickly run.

3) Misuse of the limiting adjectival modifiers, "only" and "just"
The error is the misplacement of only before a verb rather than after it. Doing so changes the meaning of the sentence entirely, often confusing the sharp reader. The words "only" and "just" are similar in meaning, and you can use them interchangeably. Consider the following example sentence:
A. WRONG: I only want to go to the movies. RIGHT: I want only to go to the movies.
In the WRONG sentence, the speaker states that (s)he "only wants to go to the movies." This sentence DOES imply that (s)he wants to do NOTHING ELSE, such as buy a bucket of popcorn, buy a ticket, sit down to watch the show, or even breathe. The usage of only before the verb is, in this sense, a disaster because now the speaker is speaking suicidally! Now, because the error is so widespread, it is often easy to say the WRONG sentence and convey the RIGHT meaning. But, the RIGHT sentence also conveys the RIGHT meaning, not only to those ignorant of this fixable error, but to those who understand it. So, pick the RIGHT sentence!
Special Notes: This error just drives me nuts, becasue it is widespread yet fixable.

4) Pronounce antecedent agreement error: IT!
I will explain the error through an example:
WRONG: It is nice. RIGHT: Ice is nice.
Look at the WRONG sentence and ask yourself, back to what does "It" refer? Nothing, the reader or listener becomes confused.

Special Notes: This error perhaps is the most widespread of the four. It is also the most difficult to fix because usually people have this error ingrained by habit and don't even realize the need to fix it.

5) Misuse of this, that, these, those, one
Basically, the misusage of these words occurs when a person omits a noun that should follow immediately after these indicator adjectives. Here are a couple examples:
A. WRONG: I don't like this. RIGHT: I don't like this (feeling, basketball, etc.).
In the WRONG sentence, "this" leaves a reader confused. In speech, the listener may be confused if you don't obviously identify what "this" is using body language.
B. WRONG: What is this? RIGHT: What is this (sensation, feeling, crap, etc.)
Here, you leave the reader or listener hanging by omitting identifying what you don't know.

Special Notes: CAREFUL! You would be entirely correct in speech to say, "What is this?" if, in some obvious way, you directed the listener's attention to exactly what you wanted "this" to identify using body language. One such way, provided that the unknown is a thing (as opposed to a sensation, feeling, etc.), would simply be to point at the object in question.

6) End of the sentence prepositions
This error occurs when you place a preposition at the end of a sentence. The error is widespread, especially in speech. Here are a couple example sentences:
A. WRONG: Who are you going with? RIGHT: With whom are you going?
(If you're sharp, then you noticed that I changed who to whom. I did so because in the WRONG sentence, we use the word that indicates the unknown person in the nominative case. In the correct sentence, we use this word in the objective case.
B. RIGHT: Shut up.
I wrote this example to indicate that "up" here is not a preposition, but an adjective. Make sure that you pay attention!
Special Notes: This error is hard to fix during speech but not in written work (proofread!). With practice, you should be able to fix it in both speech and writing. In speech, the error is often acceptable. Some people actually think the error is unecessarily identified. As one man president once said (I neither remember his name nor his exact sentence), "This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put."

7) Passive voice
Passive voice means of, relating to, or being a verb form or voice used to indicate that the grammatical subject is the object of the action or the effect of the verb. Strictly speaking, this error is not grammatical in nature but rather is stylisitc. Here are examples:
A. WRONG: The rag was washed by Joe. RIGHT: Joe washed the rag.
By making the subject of the sentence an object on which an action was performed, the WRONG sentence is passive voice. You can avoid passive voice, so do so.
B. WRONG: The reader is confused by the writer. RIGHT: The reader is confused.
This example demonstrates another way of rewording a passive sentence. In this manner, you avoid passive voice by omitting the doer of the action. This way of rewording a sentence is useful to create mystery in writing, but for the most part, and especially in speech, you should indicate what performs the action and do so by rewording the sentence into active voice (see example A).

1 2 3 4 5 6
Comments  (Page 3) 
I think the majority of disagreement to my post so far has been on the actual points. The points are well known and well established. What's more, and I am hesitant to say this as doing so appeals to authority, mathematical geniuses who currently are contructing a mathematical paragon for the paragraph have pointed out many of these nuances.

To be frank, I expected debate over whether the usage of these sins should pervade in colloquial expressions despite their OBVIOUS grammatically flaws. I didn't expect that people would actually attack the content. The issue here is not the content.

Here is another grammatical sin I'd like to share:

8) Agree and Disagree
In a sentence involving these words, the basic construction involves a subject (the person who is agreeing or disagreeing), a preposition, and a direct object. My qualm is with the preposition and the direct object:
A. WRONG: I agree with her. RIGHT: I agree to what she is arguing.
The preposition, with, and the direct object, her, are both incorrect in the WRONG sentence. Let's focus on the preposition first. Strictly speaking, you do not "agree with," you "disagree to." This fact is well established, although I never knew why (anyone care to explain?). Now for the direct object. 99% of the time when someone says, "I disagree with/to you," (s)he really means, "I disagree to what you are saying." Clearly, there is a difference between the direct objects in these two cases. Although the direct objects are both nouns, in the first case the noun is a person, and the second it is a thing. We should appreciate this fundamental distinction. In speech, I find saying "I disagree to what you're saying." to be a euphonious and grammatically correct sentence.
It seems that the hypercorrection or error of those grammatical rules does not bother him from his proficiently using the language.
Emotion: indifferentEmotion: rolleyes
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Alienvoord, I complely understand your point. I remember distinctly that my 12th grade Oxford English Grammar manual said that the usage of it as a dummy subject is perfectly acceptable. Still, I personally disagree. But I am hesitant to do so for a good reason. Good English should be grammatically sound AND euphonious. If anything, the euphonious aspect should dominate, because the major goal of good English is communication. If you try to remove the dummy subject, it, from the sentence and replace it with the noun, you may find cases where doing so compromises the sound of the sentence. In some rarer cases, you may find that you cannot remove it without compromising gramtically soundness in other aspects of the sentence. Hence, a dilemma arises. One that matches grammar vs. sound.

To be frank, I personally think that, especially for short sentences, simply saying, "it is nice out," (instead of the weather is nice out), or "that's cool," are perfectly acceptable and even admired by some. I think that for the purposes of writing, you can often give a lot of clarification and word ties by removing the dummy subject, "it," and replacing it with a noun that fully describes what the pronoun replaced. I go so far as to claim that refraining from doing so can significantly undermine your quiality of writing, hence the "deadliness" of the sin.

Just remember, the audience comes first in communication. In writing especially, all seven sins are easily avoidable; furthermore, avoidance of these sins invariably leads to better writing.
Drew, are you a native speaker?
Drewauerbach, you say these usages have obvious grammatical flaws. They don't. The problems are not obvious, in fact they are not even problems.

I would suggest that you read a modern book on English usage. You will find that no one agrees with you.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Grammar GeekDrew, are you a native speaker?
Yes.
DrewauerbachJust remember, the audience comes first in communication. In writing especially, all seven sins are easily avoidable; furthermore, avoidance of these sins invariably leads to better writing.
I completely agree with the first sentence. We shall have to agree to disagree about the second.
AlienvoordDrewauerbach, you say these usages have obvious grammatical flaws. They don't. The problems are not obvious, in fact they are not even problems. I would suggest that you read a modern book on English usage. You will find that no one agrees with you.
Drewauerbach, you say these usages have obvious grammatical flaws. They don't. The problems are not obvious, ...
->Now, initially you may think these problems are not obvious, but with practice you realize just how quickly you can pick up on them, and they become obvious. My apologies for not clarifying.

... in fact they are not even problems. I would suggest that you read a modern book on English usage.
->Alienvoord, I appreciate your persistence in this issue. But the fact is I did not create these rules out of thin air. I learned them, appreciated them, and today I regurgitate them, unaltered, in hopes that people will appreciate these distinctions, and at the very least, find new ways of expressing ideas if the one they initially choose conflicts with any of the sins.

You will find that no one agrees with you.
-> False. I just googled "pronoun antecedent agreement error," one of my so called sins. Of the 65,100 sites concerning this issue, I confidently feel that at least one of them agrees to what I claim.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Grammar Geek
DrewauerbachJust remember, the audience comes first in communication. In writing especially, all seven sins are easily avoidable; furthermore, avoidance of these sins invariably leads to better writing.
I completely agree with the first sentence. We shall have to agree to disagree about the second.
Let me provide a follow up to that sentence. After all, why does avoiding the sins invariably lead to better writing? I feel, personally, that the effort to pay attention to these sins prompts the search for new and creative ways to express ideas. Over time, these searches lead to an expanded vocabulary base, a wider range of writing styles, and a solid foundation for composition in writing.
Show more