Merged: Grama nazi?/spelling nazism.

[Hadoblado]

So I know in the profile of INTP we are described as being predisposed to being grammar trolls/Nazis. I found this difficult to believe since I am the exact opposite, considering the intended meaning to be unaltered so long as it is still understandable. I will sometimes make jokes if misspelling or lack of punctuation make a sentence ambiguous, but if there are no other possible meanings I will let it go and not comment or care.
Now I know some of you guys just love to pick a sentence to pieces if it is not communicated with optimal clarity, what I want to know is why? I cannot stress enough that I'm not having a go at anyone or being defensive, as it is very rarely myself on the receiving end. It just seems at face value that people who go out of their way to correct grammar are trying to get an easy 'one up' on those less caring/able.

For your trouble: ELEFONTS!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: Grama nazi?.

It's not about one-upping. It's about integrity. It's like wanting to get the truth out when someone's been slandering you during a political campaign.

If the context isn't correct & clear then understanding is lost.

(and then there's the one-upping)

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Really? in what way is bad grammar so different from having a stutter or lisp which systematically impairs your ability to communicate 'correctly'? Would you correct me if I had a lisp? It's not as if I'm speaking untruths to or about you, and if you can fathom the meaning enough to correct my spelling to what you suspect I intended, doesn't that mean that my meaning is not lost?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Really? in what way is bad grammar so different from having a stutter or lisp which systematically impairs your ability to communicate 'correctly'? Would you correct me if I had a lisp? It's not as if I'm speaking untruths to or about you, and if you can fathom the meaning enough to correct my spelling to what you suspect I intended, doesn't that mean that my meaning is not lost?

Because those are physical impairments. It's not so hard to keep good grammar.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: Grama nazi?.

It is if you aren't very good at English. What if a person has dyslexia?

 

[Fukyo]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Impairment and non fluency in a language due to it being second are excused.

Sloppiness and laziness aren't. It's annoying to look at and read.

 

[gruesomebrat]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Really? in what way is bad grammar so different from having a stutter or lisp which systematically impairs your ability to communicate 'correctly'? Would you correct me if I had a lisp? It's not as if I'm speaking untruths to or about you, and if you can fathom the meaning enough to correct my spelling to what you suspect I intended, doesn't that mean that my meaning is not lost?

I can sort of agree with you about spelling errors being similar to a lisp or stutter, but that does not change my reaction. Whether the person is typing or speaking, I will often correct, or at least have an urge to correct, improper English. It's more for my benefit than for the speaker's, as I want to ensure that I fully understood their meaning. In order to keep from offending the person, though, I try to keep my corrections to problems that seriously change the meaning of a sentence. A perfect example, from just a couple days ago was this little grammar gaffe.

It's funny to be honest.

Please tell me you meant to put a comma between 'funny' and 'to'... without it, this looks like you're saying that being honest amuses you.

Obviously, Lobstrich wasn't trying to say that being honest amuses him, but his lack of punctuation made his statement look that way, and to correct him, all I had to do was reword his statement to show the meaning he wrote, and contrast it to the meaning I thought he was trying to get across. Similarly, when a friend of mine (who has a lisp) says a word she has difficulty with, I correct her. Not because I didn't understand the meaning that time, but because without context, I wouldn't be able to understand the word. Almost every time that I've been accused of being a grammar nazi, it was due to an attempt to make sure that people would understand the speakers intended meaning, and I'm sure that for the most part, that's the motivation for many grammar nazi's. Unfortunately, some people take correction as a personal attack, and make a big deal out of nothing.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: Grama nazi?.

haha I would say you're not a grammar nazi, I actually read it as amusing honesty as well, though that was out of context

 

[shoeless]

Re: Grama nazi?.

i obviously don't care much. mostly just with capitalization though. i don't tend to get shit for my grammar, necessarily, at least not on a forum. in a casual one-on-one chat session i get away with zero punctuation as well.

as far as i'm concerned, if i understand what you're saying, i don't care how you say it. if your grammar does somehow impede my understanding of your idea, i will ask for clarity. but 100% of grammar mistakes do not cause 100% of misunderstandings. grammar nazism is stupid.

but that's just my always very humble opinion.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Not a grammar nazi?

Mustn't be INTP then.

 

[Words]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I don't care. I agree. Mostly it is irrelevant in the exchange of information. But when you think of language as a system, failure on one among many operations of the "equation" transforms into failure of the entire system. Maybe that's a cause of irritation. When a person just came out of technical language learning.

 

[MissQuote]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I love the english language, granted it is the only language I speak/read, (though I would like to learn others, including sign language and braille, very much) but I find a near unfathomable beauty in it. A lifetime could be spent crafting nothing but words to describe the lovliness of words and still that life may fall short of the task.

If I were to criticize it would only be out of pain in seeing a beloved degraded; if I were to wrong my beloved myself, I would accept correction in a heartbeat.

Gushyness aside, it is interesting to think how many people completely disregard the value of the gift they have been given in being taught, and able, to speak and write. These things were not achieved by our species easily or in a mere few generations, this is cumulative knowledge of tens of thousands of years of sentient eveloution.

How can on one hand the printing press be hailed as one of the most important and progressive inventions of human beings ever while on the other hand it is disregarded as unnecessary to bother speaking/writing in ones most thoughtful manner?

I don't think everyone needs to have perfect "textbook" grammar, I think it is actually more fun to see the personality shine through with the imperfect nuances and infelection in the way people speak and write, what very much bothers me, disturbs even, is when people have no care or desire to communicate in the most intelligent way they are able, when people are sloppy out of laziness. It makes me a sad little cookie.

I know I am not perfect either, far from it, but I try my best to craft my words in a pleasing and clear way. Part of this may be due to my grandparents, growing up, and even into my adulthood before he passed, my grandpa would literally refuse to acknowledge things I said to him unless I worded it sufficiently, I can't tell you how many times I learned to proper way to say somehing out of nothing more than mere frustration and anger even at his saying "I'm sorry I can't understand what you are asking me." over and over again until I magically landed on the right arrangment of words and his eyes would twinkle and suddenly I had just said the most interesting thing in the world.

 

[MissQuote]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I'm not fixing my typos though.

edit- whatever, I fixed some of them. gah.

 

[The Gopher]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I'm more of a grammer hippy, (not to be confused with grammer hypocrite)

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Really? in what way is bad grammar so different from having a stutter or lisp which systematically impairs your ability to communicate 'correctly'? Would you correct me if I had a lisp? It's not as if I'm speaking untruths to or about you, and if you can fathom the meaning enough to correct my spelling to what you suspect I intended, doesn't that mean that my meaning is not lost?

People with lisps can still make logical arguments.

But when you start messing with language, you start messing with the precision of the argument.

For some arguments, if they are broad enough, it won't matter.

But if the equation is important to the topic at hand? Then the words matter. So there's one point -- that using sloppy language can invalidate an argument, depending upon how nuanced the argument is.

Second point: Bad/sloppy grammar can reflect bad/sloppy thinking skills. Looking at the earlier point, if an engineer kept being sloppy with his equations, would you trust his work? Probably not.

Basic rules of grammar aren't difficult. If you consistently blow them off, it says something about you; and if you can't even learn them to start with, chances are your arguments aren't going to be very nuanced either. It also can indicate you don't really care enough or respect your thoughts enough to learn how to communicate clearly.



....but I'll still credit you the point that some people just like to be jerks and criticize another's work because it bolsters their ego.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Re: Grama nazi?.

seriously grammer is for losers. just sayin. lol
--

I find the suggestion that poor grammar can invalidate an argument to be quite amusing.

Oh Ti, everything has to be so damn precise with you.

 

[ElvenVeil]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Elefoonts! They are lovely.

I am not a grammar nazi. I make plenty of mistakes myself when it comes to grammar and the reason why I don't haunt others with their spelling mistakes is because I fail to see the need. As long as their sentences are clear. I however notice mistakes, but I usually just let them go.

When it comes to

Now I know some of you guys just love to pick a sentence to pieces if it is not communicated with optimal clarity, what I want to know is why?

then I am a nazi . I want the meaning of things to be a 100 % clear so that there can be no misunderstanding. If I and the person are working with the exact same terms, then it should be easier to convince the other of something, or make him understand (now this doesn't always work)

people that feels the urge to correct when something is not specified simply (I think) sees the many other ways a situation could be interpreted as and he therefore needs to be more clear to rule out the other possibilities

If you look what I just wrote then I add " (I think) " to make sure this is only personal speculation and "situation could" with could in Italic so to empathize that it is only a possibility that a situation would be interpreted differently.This is an obsession and I can understand you raise your finger towards this behavior.. It has at least two flaws, and I assume they are some of the 'why' you raise this question.

1) when you go crazy and correct ever single piece that is not clear then it may seem like an assault on the person, and that is simply not very nice to experience.

2) You may be so obsessed with these details that you forget the big picture in these moments of error disintegration

All in all I think the question you raise has a lot to it.. reading between the lines is very useful and it is imo, a thing that we should focus on, so that we are not lost in this nazi state where the focus/goal is to make sure that other people who post follows a strict logical pattern all the way through, and instead also focus on what lies between the lines, and put back the focus on the actual topic.

also: If you feel intimidated by this nazi obsession, when it should at least be a little comfortable that it is (I think I here speak for most) never the goal to do a character murder .. The character is not being taken into concideration when we act like this.

Anyway good thread

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: Grama nazi?.

seriously grammer is for losers. just sayin. lol
--

I find the suggestion that poor grammar can invalidate an argument to be quite amusing.

Oh Ti, everything has to be so damn precise with you.

Arguments rely on logic, reasoning, progression and context. Poor grammar largely affects the context and logic in your framing.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Which is korrect:

I am a "grammar nazi."
I am a "grammar nazi".
I am a "grammar nazi"?

Wanted: one grammar nazi's answer.

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I used to be uptight about grammar (though I didn't correct other people because I considered it rude). But after reading Language Log for a while, I have given up my prescriptivist ways.

I find a lot of beauty in language, and I like to write carefully and correctly, because it is more aesthetic, sounds more educated, and allows me to say just what I want to say.

But now I realize that finding out how people use language is more important than telling them what is correct. That changes over time. Besides, the "Law of Prescritivist Retaliation" says that if I correct someone else, my correction will have a grammar error in it.

Fun things I have learned about English from reading Language Log:

The phrase "I know, right?" as a confirmation of something is largely seen by its users as a phrase of politeness, more deferential than "I know" and indicating happiness to have found someone who thinks the same. (Some people are annoyed by the phrase. I never use it but it doesn't bother me.)

In the 18th century there was a construction called the passival, which was correct then but now sounds incomprehensible. "The weeds are pulling up by the gardener." "The papers were sorting all morning."

Here is the most amazing language peeve ever. Check out the little excerpt and see if you can figure out what the objection was, in 1869.

There is no rule in English against ending a sentence with a preposition.

Beginning a sentence with "As well," in English is common in Canada but less so in the US. (I don't know about other countries.)

So my grammar nazi days are behind me, and all the fun lies ahead.

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: Grama nazi?.

[this post intentionally left blank]

 

[aaaw]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Like most people I make plenty mistakes and typos when I'm not properly focussed on my writing. However, when writing seriously I often spend hours swapping around sentences so that they portray my meanings as precisely (and creatively) as possible.

I don't think this makes me a "grama nazi". I'm happy to break or bend the odd rule to better express my meaning, but I hate grammatical errors that present a barrier to understanding or that express an idea in a sloppy or unappealing manner. Sharing a thought, idea or image is the whole point of language, if you don't know the rules of the language, chances are your meaning is not being expressed in its most precise or striking form.

 

[Minuend]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I think graniz is when you correct stuff like "corect", "she were" or the like. Minor stuff like that is generally not noticed by me (in any language) and I find it annoying when people correct it.

I got the Lobstrich one btw. For one that was the most logical thing, and second lobstrich wouldn't say that "honesty is funny", he would say something like "if you're not honest you're an idiot and I'm sorry if you're offended but not really.".

 

[crippli]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Not native language here, so I perhaps I qualify for mercy as I haven't noticed much grama nazi.

Part of the point of hanging out at these places for me is to improve and perform more advanced communication(when I have the energy), and poking on my sentences is fine with me, within reason. Better that then misunderstandings or being totally ignored?

It means they care, doesn't it?

 

[aaaw]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Which is korrect:

I am a "grammar nazi."
I am a "grammar nazi".
I am a "grammar nazi"?

Wanted: one grammar nazi's answer.

Depends whether you use US English or correct English.

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Depends whether you use US English or correct English.

Ouch!

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Grama nazi?.

[this post intentionally left blank]

Have you thought at all of abstaining from editing it?

 

[Lobstrich]

Re: Grama nazi?.

@OP - It's spelled grammar!

EDIT: Nevermind. Just read your post, you spelled it correctly there.. Just had to troll before I could bother to start reading.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Haha troll bait! XD

@misquote
I am jealous of your love for the language, I absolutely hate it and find it difficult to appreciate the nuances of expression. I never even imagined anyone could enjoy the inefficient structure of the language until my grandfather (who is an ENTJ for whom I have profound respect for), told me just how much enjoyment he derives from cryptic crossword, which would not be possible with a more simplistic language.

 

[warryer]

Re: Grama nazi?.

One thing I always hated was when the class know-it-all shoots their hand up with nothing meaningful to contribute other than to correct some minor (and I do mean minor) error.

"Thank you Johnny Jackass for noticing a mistake nobody cares about."

When you go around correcting people who don't want to be corrected that's exactly what they will think of you. It's the point that counts. Unless of course this person is speaking about facts, then you have full right to "correct their ass."

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Mature
Age
Students

Not all, but I'm pretty sure most, are guilty as sin for this. They try and make up for their lack of understanding with "life experience" (because your job as a receptionist makes you really have a new and interesting perspective on Descartes), and tend to act as if the lecture is a one-on-one conversation between themselves and the lecturer. /rant

soz guys, derailed my own thread

CONTINUE?

 

[Haven]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Striving for clarity is part of being an INTP, and questioning the way someone communicates (in the larger sense of "grammar" beyond just commas and apostrophes) is natural to INTPs. When someone "breaks the rules," I tend to think that it is significant, when in actuality, it may be a mistake- which can cause confusion. I usually don't care about grammar unless I'm turning in an assignment for class or work.

No proof to back this up, but this seems to be the consensus among my INTP friends.

To OP's latest- I actually hate that SO much. So so much. The worst thing in the world to me is when I'm having a discussion/debate with some people and they start pulling in facts that are related to the overall topic but irrelevant to the debate. The "facts" just serve to derail the discussion. It is incredibly similar when I'm talking to someone with the "wisdom of age."

 

[cheese]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I heard this lower middle-class, frizzy-haired, rather strange in that totally normal, salt-of-the-earth-mother-of-five-kids-house-clean-as-really-clean-stuff woman on the train in Sydney one day, correcting this foreigner's pronunciation. It was just this one word that they couldn't seem to get right, and it went on for probably half an hour till the foreigner finally got off the train. What's more, they didn't even know each other. This lady just butted her white ass in to the foreigner's conversation and started correcting him. It was so unusual, I think it's quite likely she actually had a problem of some sort (autism? slight retardation? complete lack of social skills? maternal meltdown?). It was really weird.

I guess I am a stickler for a basic level of niceness in speech or writing, which can't be achieved without following some basic rules, but my grammar definitely doesn't pass by real Nazi standards. I try not to correct unless I think they'd like to know (and I'm not always right about this), but I do sometimes feel compelled to anyway because it gives me a yucky feeling in my tummy and throat. I'm serious. It makes me feel a little ill. I think the majority of language nazis would tell you the same. It's a compulsion for perfection, because once the words are out there in the space between you, they can be experienced - touched, smelt, swallowed, licked, snuggled up against, etc etc. It's actually personally offensive if they're not right - not in the sense that the person has intended you any harm, just in the sense that you are actually harmed and it itches away till you Fix It.

Then there are the usual considerations of precision and clarity, of course.

I suppose I have on several occasions corrected out of ego. It's really not a very good reason, because it just makes everything suck for you.

Agree 100% about mature age students. Never thought about it that way before. They're sort of like that crazy lady on the train.

 

[Particle]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Which is korrect:

I am a "grammar nazi."
I am a "grammar nazi".
I am a "grammar nazi"?

Wanted: one grammar nazi's answer.

The second option is correct. Punctuation only belongs inside of a quotation. When it is instead a term or object inside of quotes, punctuation belongs outside.

Ex:
I possess one "regulation coin sorter".
A person once said, "And lo, grammar nazis do exist."
"And lo, grammar nazis do exist," a person once said.
"And lo, grammar nazis do exist!" a person once exclaimed.

I'm not a grammar nazi, but I do agree that it jerks the same chain in me that a basic lack of precision does. Most of the time it doesn't matter (such as you playing with words by saying "korrect"), but some times it's annoying.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Grama nazi?.

The second option is correct. Punctuation only belongs inside of a quotation. When it is instead a term or object inside of quotes, punctuation belongs outside.

Ex:
I possess one "regulation coin sorter".
A person once said, "And lo, grammar nazis do exist."
"And lo, grammar nazis do exist," a person once said.
"And lo, grammar nazis do exist!" a person once exclaimed.

I'm not a grammar nazi, but I do agree that it jerks the same chain in me that a basic lack of precision does. Most of the time it doesn't matter (such as you playing with words by saying "korrect"), but some times it's annoying.

Particle, when I said, "korrect", context determined that was deliberate. If, on the other hand, the presentation was ambiguous, it might be deliberate to tempt and expose gammar nazi's, lol.

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
Which is korrect:

I am a "grammar nazi."
I am a "grammar nazi".
I am a "grammar nazi"?

While you say the 2nd option is correct, and that is the one I favor also, my wife has always told me the 1st option is the correct one ... and she is a book editor. It may take a few hours, but when she returns, I will ask her again.
--------------------------

I believe I will preempt what my wife would say with this. I find it satisfactory:

"In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks regardless of logic. In the United Kingdom, Canada, and islands under the influence of British education, punctuation around quotation marks is more apt to follow logic."
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm

 

[Bird]

Re: Grama nazi?.

For your pleasure: Elefton Evergreen.:

​

Fixed your typo (:

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Grama nazi?.

To OP's latest- I actually hate that SO much. So so much. The worst thing in the world to me is when I'm having a discussion/debate with some people and they start pulling in facts that are related to the overall topic but irrelevant to the debate. The "facts" just serve to derail the discussion. It is incredibly similar when I'm talking to someone with the "wisdom of age."

As one who has frequently been accused (on other boards, not this forum except maybe once), of derailing a discussion. (INTP's don't get derailed), this is a tough one to explain. Here's a try:

Someone who strongly wishes to make a point in a debate will clash with another who brings up something that appears to be outside the debate but ultimately sheds light on the debate by stepping back for a potential overview. It's the "ultimate" that presents the problem. Hard to explain without a clear example. But if the someone is merely "picky", as with a grammar nazi, then you are right ... unless the grammar nazi is clearing up some important ambiguity.

 

[aaaw]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I was kind of joking about the US English vs. correct English comment, but it is true that US and English conventions differ with regard to fullstops and quotation marks.

 

[gruesomebrat]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I believe I will preempt what my wife would say with this. I find it satisfactory:

"In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks regardless of logic. In the United Kingdom, Canada, and islands under the influence of British education, punctuation around quotation marks is more apt to follow logic."
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm

I think most people will agree that, in the United States, "regardless of logic" can be used to explain 90% of what is done.

As far as the little "Which is korrect?" piece goes, how about this one?

Did you really ask "Which is korrect?"?
Did you really ask "Which is korrect"?
Did you really ask "Which is korrect?"

This has always confused me, and I don't recall ever being taught a right way to write these questions. If you're asking a question about a quote that ended in a question mark, where is the question mark's proper placement?

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: Grama nazi?.

As far as the little "Which is korrect?" piece goes, how about this one?

Did you really ask "Which is korrect?"?
Did you really ask "Which is korrect"?
Did you really ask "Which is korrect?"

Inside the US, regardless of logic, when you have a quote with a question mark or exclamation mark inside a sentence with another one, you just use the one inside the quotes. Therefore, the third answer is korrect. (It took me 3 times to mistype that.)

I understand that the rule about putting a comma or period inside the quotes, regardless of logic, is starting to drift a bit in the US. But I'll probably never change how I type, as it would slow me down too much. (Now, if we started using SI units, I'd change in a heartbeat.)

 

[Particle]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Of course you did it on purpose. That's why I commented about it not being annoying since you were just doing some word play. I'm not sure how my recation was ambiguous in that regard, but I didn't meant to suggest I was trying to be picky.

---

I suppose they teach it differently in the Midwest. I maintain that I'm correct regardless of anyone else's opinion. This no doubt comes from decades of entrenchment of the "rules" I've always followed being treated as correct and accepted from elementary school through university. People also tend to hate on me when I use commas properly in lists such as this one:

"I bought one carrot, two oranges, and three bananas at the store."

When a person omits the final comma, they're grouping the two items instead of listing them separately.

---

As I said, I'm not a grammar nazi. I notice things but rarely point them out to people, and I'm guessing that that is how most people are. It's all ultimately pointless, anyway. There is no authoritative body for the English language. All there really is is a division between what people are and aren't dicks about.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Grama nazi?.

People also tend to hate on me when I use commas properly in lists such as this one:

"I bought one carrot, two oranges, and three bananas at the store."

When a person omits the final comma, they're grouping the two items instead of listing them separately.

Don't know where I read it, but it said one may be very free with including commas. They probably belong to the sound of reading more than for grammar to indicate pauses. So I remembered that and now put many more commas in than I used to.

 

[Haven]

Re: Grama nazi?.

"I bought one carrot, two oranges, and three bananas at the store."

When a person omits the final comma, they're grouping the two items instead of listing them separately.

If that bothers you, newspapers must drive you up the wall

 

[Particle]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Hehe

It's not a bother. I normally don't bring up stuff like this. I only do so because that's what the thread is about.

I forgot to mention that my mother was a college English instructor when I was growing up, so I was probably exposed to this stuff more than most.

 

[EditorOne]

Re: Grama nazi?.

(The comma before the "and" in a list is required in some style guides for grammar and considered redundant in others. Remember, spelling and grammar rules reflect "usage." It's not like someone passed a law.)

To the main point: Since my job required, starting almost at day one, editing copy written by others for grammar, spelling, content, awkwardness and factual accuracy, I can say this: Editing a few thousand newspaper stories can cure you of any desire to gratuitously harvest grammar errors. You are pretty much sated after about a thousand stories.

There are, however, times when grammar and punctuation affect meaning, with some consequences. Here's a real-world, antique, laughable example of the unintended consequences of bad punctuation involving just the absence of a comma:

The (United States) Army regulations for 1861 call for soldiers to wear coats a specific way. "On all occasions of duty, except fatigue, and when out of quarters, the coat or jacket shall be buttoned and hooked at the collar." Now, these were nine-button thigh-length coats or 12-button waist-length jackets that both had a standup collar requiring a hook. Did you read that sentence and get the idea that only the hook and the top button had to be in use? Because thousands of volunteer soldiers, including officers, did. You can see scores of photographs from the American Civil War where on-duty men have eight buttons undone. But as the pre-1861 "Regulars" knew from long-standing practice, the intent of the wording was to make sure the coat was fully buttoned AND that the easily overlooked hook at the collar was engaged.
A simple comma would have cleared it up. Goodness knows they used enough of them already in that sentence.
"... the coat or jacket shall be buttoned, and hooked at the top."
It creates an independent status for the last five words.

I rest my case for the value of punctuation in such circumstances as this.

The missing comma is still wreaking havoc, by the way. In the world of living history, reenactors (with too much time on their hands) are still arguing whether coats should be fully buttoned or buttoned at the top. Both groups cite the 1861 regulations.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Grama nazi?.

A related ambiguity:

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=231356#post231356

 

[Anthile]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Spoiler

:>

 

[EmergingAlbert]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I am a grammar Nazi because I find clarity and exactness to be very important. For example:

"Let's eat, Grandma!"
vs.
"Let's eat Grandma!"

Commas save lives.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: Grama nazi?.

Yes, but Nazi-ism would be defined more by whether you correct all mistakes you see, or just the ones that are important for comprehension. For xample, by missing an 'e' in this sentence the meaning I am attempting to communicate is not at all lost to ambiguity, there is no alternative meaning, and you can still understand my point.

 

[EditorOne]

Re: Grama nazi?.

I know what you mean by "Nazi" in this context, but really I think their adherence to rules is overstated. One description of the actual Nazi regime was that they had rules against everything but only enforced them against their enemies. What you are describing might be more like "officious grammarians," or, to get right down to it, "grammar assholes," which I think might have a better ring to it than "grammatically anally fixated." That's still a compulsion rooted in the urge to comply with grammatical rules. The part about people using grammar to demean others to make themselves feel good about themselves is undoubtedly true. I'm pretty sure most of the people with whom I've tangled on copy desks about grammar (and they turned out to be wrong, in every case) were not INTP. They really loved the minutia of it all, but often could not grasp the rationale or principles or concepts behind the rule. I nearly went blind once explaining to someone why "his wife Sonia" as opposed to "his wife, Sonia" was the difference between the possibility of a harem and monogamy. That someone was a copy editor, that is, one who is actually employed to correct grammar. The INTPs who worry about it are as you see here, people who are concerned meaning will be lost if grammar and punctuation conventions are misused.

Now I have to go write a blurb for the back of a new book. If you really want to feel small some time, go ahead and miss a subject/verb agreement in a sentence on the back cover of a book. These days it's worse than set in concrete, it's available for the universe to see and smirk over.