Wednesday, September 17, 2008

grammar part II

grammatical pet peeves, a reiteration

So I bought new shampoo. Finesse. 2 in 1. (does anyone else find it ironic that I am complaining about bad grammar and using incomplete sentences? Yeah well I like ee cummings so bite me.)

aaaaanyway, it says on the bottle: "For softer, more shiny hair."

I tilted my head like a dog who heard someone do one of those whistle-y farts that no one else in the room either hears or acknowledges, or they think it was the chair or the screen door or something.

I read it again. "For softer, more shiny hair"

well the problem is this: it SHOULD say "For softer, shinier hair"


so then after I ranted about this, my husband and I argued about it. I researched it. What is the rule exactly? well there is a rule, more or less (you know how the english language is), which states that if a word is 2 syllables or less, it gets "er", if its more than 2, it gets "more". i.e. "more ridiculous" not "ridiculouser" "shinier vs. more shiney!" "happier vs. more happy" "stupider vs. more stupid". There are some that could be debated. Shiny, in my opinion, is not one of them!

FYI, my husband and I also argued about the difference between a supporting actor and a character point being that character actors are always supporting actors but not all supporting actors are character actors. It was the most ridiculous, no wait, the ridiculousest, argument ever!

No comments:

Post a Comment