We have a box of "conversation questions" that sits in our dining room. I'm sure you've seen them - nicely printed square cards, encased in a cool Lucite cube. The questions are usually interesting, and sometimes J & I pull one from the box, and each of us answer it.
A recent question was "What are your top three pet peeves?" I jumped on this one, as I usually have so many that I cannot limit it to just three. But for the sake of the game, I managed to choose my top annoying pet peeves. As follows:
Chewing. People who chew loud.
Not crunchy loud - you just can help making some noise when biting into a crispy potato chip, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone the right to crunch into a taco. I mean mouth noises. You know the noise ... wet, smacking, gooey noises. Gross. I grew up with loud chewers, and refuse to deal with it as an adult.
Diagonal walkers.
When I'm in the car, and I politely stop to allow someone to cross the street (with or without a crosswalk or stop sign), the walker, instead of taking the direct route across the street (straight!), chooses to meaner diagonally from point A to point B. This leisurely stroll results in me, having tried to do something nice, cursing the walker and vowing to never again give right of way to a pedestrian. It's wrong, I know, especially since I myself am I diagonal walker.
Obviously poor grammar/spelling.
Again, I'm sure I've been an offender as well as the offended, but I just can't let it go. Tops on my list are there vs. their, ending sentences with prepositions, and that vs. which.
As we all know (don't we??), you use which following a comma, and that when no comma is used. Wait ... let me pull out my AP Style Manual ... it is quite old (1996), but I'm sure the rules haven't changed ...
Ah ha! It all goes back to essential and non-essential clauses. That is preferred for essential clauses. Do not uses commas for essential clauses. Which is preferred for non-essential clauses. Use commas for a non-essential clause.
Now let me pull out a favorite children's book Duck in the Truck. It has topped our most-read list of late, and each time I read it, I am painfully aware of the following passages:
This is the Duck driving home in a truck.
This is the track which is taking him back.
Teeth grinding ... must continue reading ... children love this book ...
These are the feet which jump the Duck down
into the muck, all yucky and brown.
So my question is, would I be considered totally anal-retentive if I was to correct the grammar in my children's board books??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow, I haven't ever thought about diagonal walkers. I'm with you on the grammar/spelling, though. We also have a book that makes me crazy, Postman Pat: "He's out in the rain, he's out in the snow, there's not a person who Pat doesn't know." WHOM.
In random story mode, first time I've changed the word in a children's book is as a teenaged babysitter, when the character, Mr. Condon (don't remember which book) always sent me into uncontrollable giggles because of the similarity to condom, so I would call him Mr. Connor.
I do sometimes add words to books i read, I confess, mostly if I think the rhyming line could use another syllable or two. Perhaps we should start writing our own grammatically correct, rhythmical children's books. We'd need a better marketing hook than "grammatically correct" though.
Of course it is acceptable to change the grammar. How else are your children supposed to learn to speak and write correctly?
My son is 18 now and it gives him an enormous thrill to correct my grammar since I always corrected his (of course, making his life a living hell, but that is what parents are for).
You make me laugh! I SO hate loud chewers/eaters. Kills me!
Post a Comment