TV zombies, people who watch TV most of their waking hours are the worst when it comes to doing damage to the English language. Their spoken and written language reveals the damage done to their ability to think rationally.

How often have we seen coveted double-double contractions such as?:

I'd've done it if you'd've suggested it.

Cockles of a Badger heart warmed by how seriously y'all are taking this. Yup, language changes over time, but understanding the language's history can enriched one's writing.

----------------------------
Recently, AP decided that we no longer use "vs." but instead spell it out "in ordinary speech and writing." So, it's "versus." But then AP goes on to say that one should use the "vs." "in short expressions." (This is AP's way of being impossible to understand.) The AP Stylebook goes on to give an example of a "short expression": "The issue of guns vs. butter has long been with us."
==========================
And THEN AP says: "For court cases, use the v: Marbury v. Madison."

I personally enjoyed the example of the dangling participle and the zombie brother delivering fruit. It somewhat reminded me of the book, "Eats, shoots and leaves," which entertains me no end. My two particular pet peeves include when someone tells others to "contact myself" when only he could do something to himself and also the "its vs. it's" situation. I've even seen people write, "its'" when they aren't sure! (BTW - is it "vs." or is it just "v."?)

It is always a treat to observe a language which is locked "in amber." Fossilized languge is almost as interesting a study as the old fossils who taught at the university. It was instructional to learn that William Caxton spelt differently than we do and that the "apostrofe" was a "savior of English literasy." When Caxton published Le Morte Darthur in 1485 did he really mean Le Morte d'Arthur? If you were to read the "hoole booke" you might be "surprised by the wronge spellyng" of "kyngs and knyghtes of the rounde table." I wonder if Wynkyn de Worde, Caxton's assistant from Alsace (France) didn't have a greater influence over the English language than Caxton himself. I wonder if it's the amber that makes us think.

Contractions are permitted in AP Style, investa.
.
As for the worship of Strunk and White ... a religion I admit I am reluctant to leave ... that volume is no longer held in pristine esteem:
http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of...
In short, some of its advice is good, but some isn't good at all, or may have been a century ago (or half a century ago, when White revised and popularized the volume of his college professor Strunk). Worse, sometimes it breaks its own "rules" without seeming awareness or purpose. Following it blindly is probably not a great idea.
.
It's one weight on the balance of what linguists call "prescriptivism" vs. "descriptivism" -- whether the point of grammar rules are to DESCRIBE the language or PRESCRIBE how it should be used.
.
I noticed a letter to the editor this week scolded Scott Angus for splitting an infinitive (i.e. "to boldly go..."), but that advice has already started to be deprecated. It was invented, it's believed, to conform English grammar with Latin grammar, but Latin only creates infinitives by declension, while English requires the extra word "to". It turns out that Chaucer and Shakespeare both split infinitives, so this is a bogus rule. The better rule is to keep topmost in your mind whether your writing is clear, followed by whether it avoids awkwardness. Most of the time, English sounds just fine with a split infinitive, and a lot of the time it's clearer. In other words, nothing is gained by this rule except showing that you know the rule.
.
I firmly believe in a utilitarian grammar, therefore, one that serves communication instead of, well, some fussbudget grammarian a couple of hundred years ago. The English language is constantly changing and absorbing new words and concepts, and letting it grow and live is by far a better philosophy than trying to lock it in amber.

Probably one of the best answers to the question posed is:
Don't write in Blogs.....lol

That may be the case in your writing world, investa, and you may have very good reasons for that rule. But in newspapering, we use contractions frequently, in part to produce that informal style you noted. I also recall someone telling me that, in the pre-computer days when newspapers used hot-lead machines to produce rows of type, some contractions were prefered to avoid problems that could arise if the typesetter missed the word "not," turning the intended meaning in to the opposite meaning.

I was speaking only for myself, RoCoChick.

Contractions really have no place in published articles. They're OK in conversations, blogs, and informal writings.

fool-on-the-hill is correct. Even with proper word usage, Frank has still managed to look silly in print many, many times.

I love this sentence:
"However, if neither “either” nor “neither” is used in a sentence,
you should use “nor” to express a second negative,
as long as the second negative is a verb."

If only it were that simple, Frank. Wouldn't, "How to look less silly in print", be more accurate? ;-)

I just read Frank's reply to the use of "an" and I realized that the vowel rule works best if the "a" is sounded out as a long (like you would say the letter "A" in the alphabet) vowel instead of sounding it out like "uh" (a lazy way of speaking, in my opinion).
Sorry for the duplicate nature of this post :)

I just read Frank's reply to the use of "an" and I realized that the vowel rule works best if the "a" is sounded out as a long (like you would say the letter "A" in the alphabet) vowel.

"Contrary to popular usage, these words aren’t synonymous. A “disinterested” person is someone who’s impartial. For example, a hedge fund manager might take interest in a headline regarding the performance of a popular stock, even if he's never invested in it. He’s “disinterested,” i.e., he doesn’t seek to gain financially from the transaction he’s witnessed. Judges and referees are supposed to be "disinterested." If the sentence you’re using implies someone who couldn't care less, chances are you’ll want to use “uninterested.” "
I would define the words "uninterested" and "interested" with an emotional feel and "disinterested" as neutral.
JohnWicket: Whenever there is a word that begins with a vowel, use "an". If you are having difficulty using this in verbal context, then it is an accent you are cribbing yourself with.
Eyester: The more emphatic you are, the more you appear zealous and as a result, ignorable.
jstwndrn: That "rule" was likely instated due to the fact (once upon a time) that writers get paid more for more words written. But alas, it IS more concisely descriptive, so perhaps that is the spirit in which it was designed, no matter the monetary implications. I personally feel that it is better to use fewer words to describe something so as to not confuse the reader. After all, the point of writing ANYTHING is to get attention and to get a point across, correct?

All hail Strunk and White's "Elements of Style," which is the gold standard for writers. As for "a historic house" versus "an historic house," I know what you mean. I knew a former copy editor for Time magazine who told me that it should be "an" even though lots of us aspirate the "H." She said it was the exception that proves the rule. I think it's a tweener. If I say it fast, I don't hear the "H," so maybe that's the way to go.
--------------------------
You'd think there would be immutable rules for English, but sometimes it comes down to well reasoned opinion, which is why writers work with style guides. The "Associated Press Stylebook," which is my bible in these matters, says "a historic." Go figure.

I also was taught that "more than" referred to the quantity of things, while "over" referred to a spacial relationship. However, I've seen that distinction eroded over time. Language does change, but we should accept those changes only after lengthy periods of time. Perhaps we're closing in on the end of one of those periods.

eyster- maybe you will fix your print and then I might read some stuff- maybe.

Thanks, Frank. I've bookmarked both of those sites for future reference.
.
A rule that has stuck in my mind since a job I had years ago is to write "more than" instead of "over" when referring to the number of years someone has done something. Is that one still legit?

THANKS for your relevant, practical blog with the "here" and "here" links, FRANK! I make it a point to read your blog whenever you post... grateful for your poignant, relevant, helpful and encouraging blog... please keep up the GOOD work, Frank... here we go...John

I always preferred using an old edition of Strunk and White to modify my language usage. However, I'm still "up a stump" as to whether or not I should use a or an before an unaspirated "H" in history. If I prefer the French approach I would not pronounce the H so harshly but if I prefer the Germanic approach I would pronounce it strongly. What is an American-speaking English person(or English-speaking American) to do? I don't want to be fraught with fear over this dilemma. Frankly, what do you think? Maybe my real problem is that I have a secret desire to be English.