Calling all grammar nazis

[murphley]

Hi there. I am creating a new mystery cache and I have moved the 'Geocache Description' section elsewhere for my cache (I know, it's crazy).

What I am wondering is the correct word substitute in the following sentence. I don't normally mull over these things so much but this has been driving me mad and I want to get everything perfect for my first hide.

Below the description menu I have written:

 

"Not here. The description of this cache is located...." or

"Not here. The description for this cache is located..." ?

 

 

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who bothers to reply.

[+Walts Hunting]

Wow that is the first time I have seen a Goodwin violation in the title. You will shortly be advised to not use the N word on this forum.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Walts Hunting

[+Viajero Perdido]

I just googled the wordreference forums and couldn't find a verdict, so I'll go out on a limb and say...

 

Both sound valid to me.

 

PS: That's funny about Godwin's Law.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Viajero Perdido

[+The_Incredibles_]

I ran this through Word's grammar check and it said both were OK.

 

I personally would choose "for".

[+Viajero Perdido]

Hey wait a sec, whatever happened to brevity?

 

"Description moved to ..."

 

Problem solved.

[4wheelin_fool]

Hi there. I am creating a new mystery cache and I have moved the 'Geocache Description' section elsewhere for my cache (I know, it's crazy).

What I am wondering is the correct word substitute in the following sentence. I don't normally mull over these things so much but this has been driving me mad and I want to get everything perfect for my first hide.

Below the description menu I have written:

 

"Not here. The description of this cache is located...." or

"Not here. The description for this cache is located..." ?

 

 

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who bothers to reply.

 

Beide sind in Ordnung.

[+Roman!]

If anyone one actually looking at your cache is smart enough to know if your wording is correct or not then I don't think they are dumb enough to go looking for Tupperware containers hidden by someone with no finds and no hides or worse yet, socks.

 

Seriously, does it matter? We are not that smart, there is a reason the average iq is below 90.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Seriously, does it matter? We are not that smart, there is a reason the average iq is below 90.

 

Not in the US or Canada, which are 98 and 97 respectfully.

 

http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

[+Fridge01]

I'll vote for for. Both are correct grammar. The difference is in the meaning conveyed (Calling all meaning Nazis?). Again either one is reasonable. If this were one of those SAT questions where you need to pick the word that most exactly fits I'll vote for for. Yes, I know I made several grammatical errors in this post.

[+dprovan]

The description of the cache would describe the physical container and location. In rare cases, that's what's in a geocaching description field, but more commonly the description contains text that has components that don't describe the cache, but rather talk about the area, the reason for placing the cache, or whatever. That would be a description for the cache, meaning the geocaching.com "description" field for this cache's web page. Since a description of a cache entered in the geocaching.com page would also be in the description field, you could refer to it either way.

 

Although I'm thinking along the same lines as Viajero Perdido: why not just leave out "for the cache" and say "the description is located", or, if you want to be verbose, "the cache's description is located".

[+TopShelfRob]

To the first reply -- the term "Grammar Nazi" is a fairly well-known term for people who are particular about using correct grammar and pointing out when others don't. I'm pretty sure Godwin's Law only applies to actual Nazis and a tendency for hyperbolic statements in a forum such as this to eventually compare something to them.

 

And a second point, I think the word beginning with N that the phrase "The N Word" generally applies to is certainly not Nazi, grammar or otherwise.

Edited May 3, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+The_Incredibles_]

if you want to be verbose, "the cache's description is located".

 

I was thinking "the cache description is located...." would be the best way to phrase it.

[+MartyBartfast]

I wouldn't use either, I would go with:

 

The cache description is located at...

[+The_Incredibles_]

To the first reply -- the term "Grammar Nazi" is a fairly well-known term for people who are particular about using correct grammar and pointing out when others don't.

 

Honesty, I wish people wouldn't use the word "Nazi" so lightly. WW2 was such a dark period of history for so many families, including my own. I would prefer not to be reminded of it.

[+TopShelfRob]

I think it was the way it was used Seinfeld's "The Soup Nazi"... that made the word more okay to use in polite company.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The description of the cache would describe the physical container and location. In rare cases, that's what's in a geocaching description field, but more commonly the description contains text that has components that don't describe the cache, but rather talk about the area, the reason for placing the cache, or whatever. That would be a description for the cache, meaning the geocaching.com "description" field for this cache's web page. Since a description of a cache entered in the geocaching.com page would also be in the description field, you could refer to it either way.

 

Although I'm thinking along the same lines as Viajero Perdido: why not just leave out "for the cache" and say "the description is located", or, if you want to be verbose, "the cache's description is located".

 

Technically, the cache is not alive (we hope). It cannot possess anything. The possessive would be incorrect.

[team tisri]

Hi there. I am creating a new mystery cache and I have moved the 'Geocache Description' section elsewhere for my cache (I know, it's crazy).

What I am wondering is the correct word substitute in the following sentence. I don't normally mull over these things so much but this has been driving me mad and I want to get everything perfect for my first hide.

Below the description menu I have written:

 

"Not here. The description of this cache is located...." or

"Not here. The description for this cache is located..." ?

 

 

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who bothers to reply.

 

You could always use "The cache's description is located...", just to throw another option into the mix

 

Although I fear "Not here." is not a complete sentence

[+lamoracke]

I think it was the way it was used Seinfeld's "The Soup Nazi"... that made the word more okay to use in polite company.

 

Yeah, its a slippery slope, but I agree with this...have substituted this so many ways...we have a Subway N#^@ because the guy is very good at his job speed wise but to 99% of people who is incredibly rude, I think I have heard dozens of people call him that. Either way, I would not be trying to list a cache name with it nor is the CO most likely.

[murphley]

Wow. I didn't realise this forum was so active. Firstly:

To the first reply -- the term "Grammar Nazi" is a fairly well-known term for people who are particular about using correct grammar and pointing out when others don't. I'm pretty sure Godwin's Law only applies to actual Nazis and a tendency for hyperbolic statements in a forum such as this to eventually compare something to them.

 

This. As far as I'm aware, Godwin's Law applied when the term is used in a negative connotation, which is not the case here. It is a well known term and if I offended anyone it was not my intention.

 

If anyone one actually looking at your cache is smart enough to know if your wording is correct or not then I don't think they are dumb enough to go looking for Tupperware containers hidden by someone with no finds and no hides or worse yet, socks.

 

Seriously, does it matter? We are not that smart, there is a reason the average iq is below 90.

Yes.

 

..I may have a new account but this isn't my first rodeo. It's not so much about the grammar as it is about enhancing the caching experience, especially for the final reveal.

Edited May 3, 2014 by murphley

[team tisri]

Hmmm... I wonder if there would be any mileage in a puzzle cash that included text that sugested the final was at 50.AB.CDE where the text said something like

 

"Your going to have to work out where the cash is really hidden. Use the following quay. Once you've found the coordinate's you need to go their to find the cash"

 

A is the number of speling mistakes in the text

B is the number of tpying mistkaes in the text

C is the number of grammatical errers in the text

D is the number of times the wrong homonym is used

E is the number of apostrophe's that are present but shouldn't be

[+TriciaG]

HA! Love it!!

[+TopShelfRob]

Intentionally wrong homonyms or not, any description that misspells cache as "cash" is just going to lead to a lot of dissapointment.

Edited May 3, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[JASTA 11]

Go with the second one.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Hmmm... I wonder if there would be any mileage in a puzzle cash that included text that sugested the final was at 50.AB.CDE where the text said something like

 

"Your going to have to work out where the cash is really hidden. Use the following quay. Once you've found the coordinate's you need to go their to find the cash"

 

A is the number of speling mistakes in the text

B is the number of tpying mistkaes in the text

C is the number of grammatical errers in the text

D is the number of times the wrong homonym is used

E is the number of apostrophe's that are present but shouldn't be

 

There's one like that here. Took me many passes to solve.

 

Who Learned U How 2 Rite??

[team tisri]

Anything based on mistakes in the text would have to have a final sting in the tail. Maybe have a description that says the final stage is an ammo can in the woods when it's really a soggy film pot behind a sign.

[+TopShelfRob]

Anything based on mistakes in the text would have to have a final sting in the tail. Maybe have a description that says the final stage is an ammo can in the woods when it's really a soggy film pot behind a sign.

Or maybe an additional mistake in the "correct" final coordinates, like transposed digits. That would really add to the difficulty.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Anything based on mistakes in the text would have to have a final sting in the tail. Maybe have a description that says the final stage is an ammo can in the woods when it's really a soggy film pot behind a sign.

Or maybe an additional mistake in the "correct" final coordinates, like transposed digits. That would really add to the difficulty.

 

Sure, as long as there is some aspect to the puzzle that provides a means for someone to solve which digits have been transposed. Increasing the difficult by just forcing someone to guess the final solution does not make for a good puzzle.

 

 

[+TopShelfRob]

Sure, as long as there is some aspect to the puzzle that provides a means for someone to solve which digits have been transposed. Increasing the difficult by just forcing someone to guess the final solution does not make for a good puzzle.

Well, then it would just be part of the puzzle and not technically a mistake. Maybe if there was a pattern to the mistakes that would allow one to figure which digits would be transposed. Still not everybody is capable of easily solving every puzzle.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Sure, as long as there is some aspect to the puzzle that provides a means for someone to solve which digits have been transposed. Increasing the difficult by just forcing someone to guess the final solution does not make for a good puzzle.

Well, then it would just be part of the puzzle and not technically a mistake. Maybe if there was a pattern to the mistakes that would allow one to figure which digits would be transposed. Still not everybody is capable of easily solving every puzzle.

 

I've got one like that. Third and fourth letter of each five-letter word are transposed. Solution: Do that for the coords.

[+narcissa]

IQ is a normalized scale that is designed to have a mean of 100.

 

If anyone one actually looking at your cache is smart enough to know if your wording is correct or not then I don't think they are dumb enough to go looking for Tupperware containers hidden by someone with no finds and no hides or worse yet, socks.

 

Seriously, does it matter? We are not that smart, there is a reason the average iq is below 90.

[+svosen]

Although I fear "Not here." is not a complete sentence

 

I was thinking the same thing...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Sure, as long as there is some aspect to the puzzle that provides a means for someone to solve which digits have been transposed. Increasing the difficult by just forcing someone to guess the final solution does not make for a good puzzle.

Well, then it would just be part of the puzzle and not technically a mistake. Maybe if there was a pattern to the mistakes that would allow one to figure which digits would be transposed. Still not everybody is capable of easily solving every puzzle.

 

That's not the point. There are lots of ways to create a difficult puzzle, Forcing someone to guess the answer (especially if there isn't a coordinate checker) isn't a good way to create difficult puzzle. I've done a five star difficult puzzle which took over a month to solve (and from what I've read, that is about typical) and there was no guessing involved.

 

 

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

If anyone one actually looking at your cache is smart enough to know if your wording is correct or not then I don't think they are dumb enough to go looking for Tupperware containers hidden by someone with no finds and no hides or worse yet, socks.

 

Seriously, does it matter? We are not that smart, there is a reason the average iq is below 90.

Wow....I've been given time outs for much less insulting statements. Nice.

[+terrkan78]

"Not here. The description of this cache is located...." or

"Not here. The description for this cache is located..." ?

There are good reasons cited above for using "for," or for using different text altogether, but I like "of" simply because it sounds better.

[murphley]

Although I fear "Not here." is not a complete sentence

 

I was thinking the same thing...

I am aware of this but since I moved the description elsewhere, I want to appear to be doing as little describing as possible.

 

Thanks for all your suggestions the cache is now awaiting review.

[BiIIyBobNosePicker]

Solving this puzzle is done by finding the numerology of the spelling errars.

[+Traditional Bill]

Solving this puzzle is done by finding the numerology of the spelling errars.

 

That cache is the worst.

[BiIIyBobNosePicker]

Solving this puzzle is done by finding the numerology of the spelling errars.

 

That cache is the worst.

 

Thanks!

[+The Rat]

I prefer to think of myself as the Word Police, rather than a grammar Nazi, but my cache Word Police Quiz, based only on spelling, not grammar, has worked out nicely because the spellings are easily verified by any dictionary, but other times when I have used grammar mistakes either as part of a puzzle or in a hint, it has not gone well. This is largely because most Americans, geocachers or not, are pretty bad at grammar (unlike foreigners educated abroad who learned proper English). Even newscasters on national networks make mistakes all the time, and let's not even start on people who comment on YouTube videos. People argue about what is correct grammar based on what they hear all the time, not what is actually the correct rule. For instance, a puzzle I had that involved Messier objects had a hint suggesting people look for the grammar error to find the theme of the numbers. I had repeatedly described the puzzle getting "more messy". Despite the fact that grammar authorities all concur that the proper way to form the comparative form of a two-syllable adjective ending in -y, like messy, is to change the -y to -ier, I don't think anyone got the hint. I got several nasty emails afterward insisting it was not a grammar error to say "more messy." Actually it is, but making a puzzle based on correct grammar is likely to make you about as popular as correcting people's grammar in public. I have seen several puzzles like team tisri's and I think the same arguments with the CO's have ensued, or at the very least, too many would-be solvers can't solve it and keep asking for hints when all they need to do is learn grammar to solve it. So my advice is to avoid basing the puzzle on grammar.

 

Oh, and to answer the OP's question, either word seems fine to me. Saying it more concisely may or may not work for the puzzle.

[+RobDJr]

I prefer to think of myself as the Word Police, rather than a grammar Nazi, but my cache Word Police Quiz, based only on spelling, not grammar, has worked out nicely because the spellings are easily verified by any dictionary, but other times when I have used grammar mistakes either as part of a puzzle or in a hint, it has not gone well. This is largely because most Americans, geocachers or not, are pretty bad at grammar (unlike foreigners educated abroad who learned proper English). Even newscasters on national networks make mistakes all the time, and let's not even start on people who comment on YouTube videos. People argue about what is correct grammar based on what they hear all the time, not what is actually the correct rule. For instance, a puzzle I had that involved Messier objects had a hint suggesting people look for the grammar error to find the theme of the numbers. I had repeatedly described the puzzle getting "more messy". Despite the fact that grammar authorities all concur that the proper way to form the comparative form of a two-syllable adjective ending in -y, like messy, is to change the -y to -ier, I don't think anyone got the hint. I got several nasty emails afterward insisting it was not a grammar error to say "more messy." Actually it is, but making a puzzle based on correct grammar is likely to make you about as popular as correcting people's grammar in public. I have seen several puzzles like team tisri's and I think the same arguments with the CO's have ensued, or at the very least, too many would-be solvers can't solve it and keep asking for hints when all they need to do is learn grammar to solve it. So my advice is to avoid basing the puzzle on grammar.

 

Oh, and to answer the OP's question, either word seems fine to me. Saying it more concisely may or may not work for the puzzle.

 

I'm not so sure that you should be saying that most Americans are pretty bad at grammar. I'll admit that there probably are a good number that would die if survival hinged upon using grammar good (sorry, I couldn't resist that), but I think the fault is more due to the fact that American English is still a living, breathing language. It's still growing, still changing, driven by daily usage instead of dry rules found in dusty textbooks. Proper, formal English has a more limited usage, for schoolwork, reports, novels, and in the work world.

 

I'm not saying this is a good thing (and for newscasters to be making grammatical errors is inexcusable), but people tend not to be as good at things they do not use often. I know how to play baseball, but I rarely play, so a suggestion that I'm pretty bad at baseball because I can't play at a high level, much less professional, is somewhat inaccurate.

 

But I do sympathize with you. I am no expert at grammar, and yet I often find myself doing the face-palm over grammatical errors I come across.

 

A puzzle based on grammar is perfectly acceptable, but perhaps the difficulty rating should be a little higher. Any arguments from Grammar Grinches over the correctness of any particular issue can be easily resolved by pointing out the proper usage rules in any good grammar text.

 

As for the original question, put me down in the "for" category. Saying "the description of the cache" (to me) means at the next location I should expect to find the cache described (the cache is a thirty caliber ammo can measuring x inches by y inches by z inches, painted pink with purple polka dots).

[+dprovan]

A puzzle based on grammar is perfectly acceptable, but perhaps the difficulty rating should be a little higher.

While I'd enjoy a puzzle based on grammar (although it's hard to imagine, so I'll have to leave it to someone more clever than I to create), such a puzzle creator should be warned that since grammar is so universally bad, I assume I'm not the only one that spends a lot of time ignoring grammar mistakes in cache descriptions where they are unintentional, so the puzzle might be easily overlooked. Ditto, in spades, for typos.

[+The_Incredibles_]

American English is still a living, breathing language. It's still growing, still changing, driven by daily usage instead of dry rules found in dusty textbooks. Proper, formal English has a more limited usage, for schoolwork, reports, novels, and in the work world.

 

Amen to that. If 90% of people are saying things 1 way and the textbook says it's supposed to be the other way, then maybe the textbook needs to be changed.

Edited May 27, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+The Rat]

American English is still a living, breathing language. It's still growing, still changing, driven by daily usage instead of dry rules found in dusty textbooks. Proper, formal English has a more limited usage, for schoolwork, reports, novels, and in the work world.

Amen to that. If 90% of people are saying things 1 way and the textbook says it's supposed to be the other way, then maybe the textbook needs to be changed.

I couldn't disagree more. To digress a moment, I agree completely about typos; we all do those and it is not a sign of bad understanding. But grammar rules are rules because they form a logical structure that enables listeners/readers to understand what is being said. To give an example: these days you hear "Me and my friend went..." all the time, and sometimes "He helped my dad and I...". Both are wrong because they use the wrong case. The subject should have the subjective case and the object should have the objective case. Simple concept. You wouldn't say "Me went..." or "He helped I ..." but, for reasons unknown, many people, including a high school teacher I recently met, seem to think that when you stick another person in there you reverse that idea. This rule is important is because it embodies a basic principal that is consistent throughout all major western languages and a couple of Asian languages I know. Being able to identify the subject and object accurately are important to understanding, and other languages do not flip flop case like this. This is one reason Americans are so poor at learning foreign languages. It's much more difficult to learn another language if you don't understand the basic concepts of grammar. If you understand the difference between "I" and "me" it is easier to understand the difference between "je" and "moi," and so on, and the French will certainly understand you much better if you use them correctly. As for avoiding caches with bad grammar, I do that sometimes. I figure that if your cache page is that poorly written, the cache itself is probably crappy, too. When I do go for them, I often find that the cache description or hint is unintentionally misleading because of the CO's inability to express himself or herself. I remember one infuriating 1-star cache I traveled 45 miles each way to get (to drop a TB near an airport) and DNFed because the hint said it was 6 feet from concrete, so I only searched spots that were approximately 6 feet from concrete, even though there was a spot a few inches from the sidewalk that exactly met the cache description. I looked at that but didn't open it because it was too close. It turned out the CO meant it was WITHIN 6 feet of concrete, not that it was 6 feet from concrete. In order for people to say what they mean they have to know how to say what they mean.

Edited May 27, 2014 by The Rat

[team tisri]

American English is still a living, breathing language. It's still growing, still changing, driven by daily usage instead of dry rules found in dusty textbooks. Proper, formal English has a more limited usage, for schoolwork, reports, novels, and in the work world.

Amen to that. If 90% of people are saying things 1 way and the textbook says it's supposed to be the other way, then maybe the textbook needs to be changed.

I couldn't disagree more. To digress a moment, I agree completely about typos; we all do those and it is not a sign of bad understanding. But grammar rules are rules because they form a logical structure that enables listeners/readers to understand what is being said. To give an example: these days you hear "Me and my friend went..." all the time, and sometimes "He helped my dad and I...". Both are wrong because they use the wrong case. The subject should have the subjective case and the object should have the objective case. Simple concept. You wouldn't say "Me went..." or "He helped I ..." but, for reasons unknown, many people, including a high school teacher I recently met, seem to think that when you stick another person in there you reverse that idea. This rule is important is because it embodies a basic principal that is consistent throughout all major western languages and a couple of Asian languages I know. Being able to identify the subject and object accurately are important to understanding, and other languages do not flip flop case like this. This is one reason Americans are so poor at learning foreign languages. It's much more difficult to learn another language if you don't understand the basic concepts of grammar. If you understand the difference between "I" and "me" it is easier to understand the difference between "je" and "moi," and so on, and the French will certainly understand you much better if you use them correctly. As for avoiding caches with bad grammar, I do that sometimes. I figure that if your cache page is that poorly written, the cache itself is probably crappy, too. When I do go for them, I often find that the cache description or hint is unintentionally misleading because of the CO's inability to express himself or herself. I remember one infuriating 1-star cache I traveled 45 miles each way to get (to drop a TB near an airport) and DNFed because the hint said it was 6 feet from concrete, so I only searched spots that were approximately 6 feet from concrete, even though there was a spot a few inches from the sidewalk that exactly met the cache description. I looked at that but didn't open it because it was too close. It turned out the CO meant it was WITHIN 6 feet of concrete, not that it was 6 feet from concrete. In order for people to say what they mean they have to know how to say what they mean.

 

I agree. Another issue is that when speaking there is nothing to differentiate "there", "their" and "they're" or between "your" and "you're", but when writing the meanings are very different. It's frustrating to have to read something more than once because the writer didn't know the difference between homonyms, or wrote a stream of words resembling what they might have spoken had they been communicating verbally.

 

One thing I always find quite noteworthy is the way people who speak English as a foreign language make an effort to get it right, whereas so many people who only speak English just assume it's everyone else's job to make sense of whatever mangled garbage they care to spout.

[+RobDJr]

I do agree that the structure provided by grammatical rules is invaluable, and that it would not be a bad thing at all if more people were aware of those rules and used them properly. But a great deal of the time, the beauty of this language we call English comes from the ways we bend and break the rules. If you care to look, you will find rules that were once considered proper which are now archaic due to the growth and change of the language. That is not a bad thing.

 

The point upon which I think grammatical rules should be rigid and inflexible is when doing otherwise introduces uncertainty, confusion, or outright misunderstanding. Poor grammar is still poor grammar, yes, but nobody will really misunderstand "me and my friend went" or "he helped my dad and I". Six feet from concrete does imply an exactness that apparently wasn't intended, so that phrasing should be avoided. That is the basis of my preference for the use of "for" in place of "of" in the original post.

 

For what it's worth, I do make the effort to get my grammar right (although I do have my faults here and there). But I am not even close to being considered a member of the word police, much less a grammar nazi. The everyday use of the language, I think, is at least as important as the structure upon which the language is hung. It is what makes the language so vibrant.

 

In order not to stray too far off topic, I once again place my vote in the "for" category, but will add that I would understand the meaning regardless of which word was used.

[+popokiiti]

Hmmm... I wonder if there would be any mileage in a puzzle cash that included text that sugested the final was at 50.AB.CDE where the text said something like

 

"Your going to have to work out where the cash is really hidden. Use the following quay. Once you've found the coordinate's you need to go their to find the cash"

 

A is the number of speling mistakes in the text

B is the number of tpying mistkaes in the text

C is the number of grammatical errers in the text

D is the number of times the wrong homonym is used

E is the number of apostrophe's that are present but shouldn't be

 

There's one like that here. Took me many passes to solve.

 

Who Learned U How 2 Rite??

 

I kept getting a headache every time I tried that one!

Edited May 28, 2014 by popokiiti

[+The Rat]

We did get a bit off-topic, but I think it is worth commending the OP for his desire to get it right on his first puzzle cache. Many new hiders are not so considerate. I don't have a problem with slang or colloquial language, even neologisms, in cache descriptions. What I am trying to emphasize is that sloppiness or laziness, or even outright ignorance, in language on a cache page and many other places (instructions or directions, for example) can cause other people a lot of headaches, wasted time, DNFs, or a distaste for your caches. It is important both to be considerate to others and for you get what you want (finders in this case) by being clear, which includes being grammatically correct. I don't see a chance of misunderstanding with either of the OP's versions, so I am not concerned as to which is "better." Neither violates a grammar rule.

 

As for the argument that if 90% of the people, or maybe most of the people, say something a certain way, the grammar books should change to accommodate that, close examination will show that to be a poor guideline. Probably close to 90% of young people sprinkle their speech with the word "like" when it has no grammatical or other meaning. "I was like so worried that it would like be like too scary, but it turned out to be like totally awesome." Should we change the grammar books to say the word "like" should be placed in random spots in every sentence? We could get into science and religion, too - over 90% of the world's population thought the earth was flat, and still today there are probably some provable scientific facts or principles that are disbelieved by over 90% of the population. Stylistic rules do change, like comma use (less is now considered better) and that's fine, but the basic grammar rules remain valid even when people violate them.