While we're on song lyrics, there is one line in Gordon Lightfoot's "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" that bothers me every time.

"Are" seems like a no-brainer.

all that remains

An interesting one. "All" takes a plural verb, but is that the subject here? I would say "that" is the subject. I think "all that remains" is an idiom corresponding to "what remains," which means it would take a singular verb: "What remains is a and b."

I browsed through Google books and there are lots of examples of this formulation: "all that remains is to embellish and cultivate those things" (Francis Bacon), etc. On the other hand, there were a lot of examples of "all that remains are" as well. Would that be a hypercorrection?

I agree with you, hence why I try not to do this.

Figured this would be the best place to settle a disagreement.

My friend said:

Some commercials have a way of ingratiating themselves under your skin a little more than others.

We were talking about a particularly obnoxious commercial. I don't think he used ingratiating in a way that would be considered appropriate. Thoughts?

Either "ingratiating" or "under your skin" is wrong, depending on what he's trying to say.

I just googled "ingratiate under your skin" and apparently it has been used before. But it doesn't make any sense, although I might be wrong.

You're friend is a stupid butt

Yeah he seems to not know either ingratiate or the idiom under your skin. If it's a negative opinion then maybe he meant ingrain or something.

Haha just saw this on laughs or links.

Question is: should he be corrected or left to use it in his style?

Obviously not real but fonejacker's 'errors' can be found in plenty of non natives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5UEZYeSVqA

What is the possessive form of my first cousin once removed. Such as my first cousin once removed's hat.

There is no such possessive form. Just find a different way to say what you want, e.g. "The hat that belongs to my first cousin, once removed."

That's bull****.

"My cousin's hat."

because (s)he has been removed from the family!
even that hat dont want him/her back

While watching a WPT episode tonight, Mike Sexton says, in a heads-up situation:

Player A "has the best hand"



No, player A "has the better hand"

(I know, I know, poetic license, but this has always bugged me.)

and to whom does it belong when riding a scalp, pray tell?

Sexton's sentence is correct. In the situation you describe (without knowing more context) I think his word choice is more appropriate than yours too. Also, you should almost always use "a better" rather than "the better" when modifying a singular noun.

Excellent point!


private joker had it best:

interesting article/study re: the evolution of language

fwiw, I'm 31 and think "on accident" is terrible and you sound stupid if you say it.

It's just plain wrong, no matter what usage statistics that author presents. In this use the preposition "by" is answering the question "how". The use of the preposition "on" can't answer that question here, and is generally used to indicate a relationship in time or place.

It's also just standard English by longstanding convention, and the trend towards misusing "on" doesn't change that. It would be interesting to trace the source of this trend. It definitely started with children, who then got older. Did it come from some kid's TV show back in the 80s/90s maybe?


Edit: and just to be clear, the phrase is technically grammatical, but still wrong because the word combination is nonsensical.

Good. Better. Best.

I'm not sure of your point, but Sexton's sentence was completely correct. Your example was also a correct sentence, but with a different meaning. You seem to be implying that "better" is for comparing two things, and that the superlative form "best" can only be used for comparing more than two. That's totally false.

Here's a relevant one, from 1979:

Saw Rocky II the other day. There is a scene where his wife Adrienne tells him "There's one thing I want you to do. Win. Win."

So later he's working out with a shirt on with these words applied to it:

Win
"Rocky"
Win

I don't quite know if this is even wrong or not as I guess "Rocky" is a nickname but the quote is wrong, and it just seems like you'd put quotes around the whole thing if at all.

From: http://www.suite101.com/

Paul and Bob agree with me:



NOG, you may have a point in the the sense that english has been corrupted over the years.

I don't believe the relaxation of the superlative rule is a corruption. I think it's an elementary school rule teachers use to make things simple for kids but one that proficient adult writers don't need. I agree you wouldn't use the comparative with 3 or more things. But you can use the superlative with two.

It's sort of like the obsolete rule about beginning sentences with conjunctions, which working writers dropped decades ago (but is still taught to kids to keep them from writing run-on sentences). I can find as many citations that consider the superlative rule pedantic and overly formal as you can find supporting it. And some grammar guides state that the superlative can be used when comparing "two or more" things.

That said, your position on it is valid and justifiable, I just disagree.


Edit: here's one discussion of how grammarians came to use this rule.