I wish this was dated, as of when they did it. SSC is back up, so while its nice having an index to browse and some editorial "best of" contribution, I otherwise dont know why youd read the articles here and not the original site.
Yes. It also has all the original conversation below the posts restored. The theme doesnt matter that much to me because I can control the display of a page client side, using something like Mercury or Dark Reader etc. In fact, I quite like the lack of a theme, leaving it entirely up to me. (Not that your theme in any way impedes that same freedom.)
I'm not sure I follow. Is the value add you bring to his blog the theming?
I ask because, the curated index you offer could just link back to the original posts.
Given everything else being equal, I would prefer to read the original source over a mirror. I then dont have to verify it is an accurate representation, and they dont have to be kept in sync if things change on the source end. Maybe a separate clickable link at the end of each line that takes you to the original post would be helpful. (orig) A link blog / pure index model would also run less afoul of any sort of copyright issue, if you wanted to extend this concept to other blogs. I would personally encourage this, shifting to a more generalized linkblog that links outward to other sscesque writing. It makes your offering more unique than a theme and index.
Or we could just learn the most basic grammar rules in our language so we don't sound ignorant instead of just winging it at all times.
You only hear it from English teachers because they're the only ones who want to help you. When you don't know the difference between an adjective and past participle in your cover letter or article, you just look a little less competent. Nobody is going to respond to help you out.
Yes, language evolves, but this case is a bad example of that. To me, and other people I know, "X and me went to the movies" sounds exactly as wrong as "Me went to the movies." This is not an attack on people who are saying it "wrong", because I understand that it doesn't sound that wrong to everybody. But the fact that some people do hear it as I do is information that can serve a person's decisions. It's OK to not want to "sound dumb" in a specific context, even though it would be unreasonably mean to make that accusation. The opposite is also OK: To not bother adjusting for that audience - maybe you just don't care enough about the way they perceive language.
My point is, even though getting it "wrong" is very common, this grammatical rule is still far from dead in practice, and so simply offering the correction doesn't necessarily mean the person is being purely pedantic.
Of course this is all to do with "me" vs "I". I agree the strict order of the nouns is indeed almost dead in practice.
That one's still firmly in the territory of being a good rule to follow if you're trying to communicate clearly, without being distracting, and aren't aiming at some kind of particular, very colloquial register. Perhaps in 30-50 years that will have changed.
The correct term for this is hypercorrect (this is more accurate description of this phenomenon than “less/more correct”). [1]
I’m trying not to quibble over language — just wanted to note that this is a well-documented phenomenon with a fancy name (I’m not an English teacher).
That's actually the opposite problem. The example given there (which matches the description) is the use of "a friend and I" in object position, not subject position (as is the case here) due to over application of the actual rule that one should use "I" and not "me" when in subject position.
I'm not sure that this qualifies for the same, since it seems unlikely to be the result of overgeneralization of rule so much as a simple (and common) mistake.
No, this is correct. Hypercorrection for this rule usually comes in the form of saying or writing things like, "would you like to come with Tom and I to the park?" due to not understanding why the rule exists, and just blindly following the pattern.
