10 items of fewer
this is bad grammar
shareWho cares? Are you the chief of the grammar police? Do you seriously think that if the movie were called Ten Items or Fewer that it would make the world a better place?
shareThe original poster might be a tad narrow in his/her concerns (movie titles convey very little that isn't represented more adequately by the movie itself), but surely you don't mean to imply that we should live by the principle "if it doesn't make the world a better place, it doesn't matter". I doubt you apply this standard when you are waiting to see whether the very expensive meal you just ordered will taste good.
In answer to your original question, people who love language care (just as people who love food care about how it tastes). As it happens, this movie title is ambiguous as between two ways of parsing the scope of the predication. It's *interesting*, nicholee77, and *that's* a very good reason to care about anything.
And yes, actually, using language properly *does* make the world a better place, not only for those of us who care for the beauty, power and structure of language, but because the use of proper grammar makes it easier to understand what others mean by what they say. You may believe that others understand what you say, whether or not you speak grammatically, but how will you know for sure? While variations in how we understand the rules of grammar don't entirely undermine the vernacular as a vehicle for communication, the degree of variation does matter to comprehension, which is why even a language generous to change at the hands of users, like English, *needs* a common grammar.
Which is to say, simply, 'grammar police', as you call them, are a good thing for the world, making it a better place.
If I have made any grammatical mistakes here, please *do* alert me!
The english language doesn't even follow its own rules. Like "laugh". How the hell does that make sense? There's a classic "I Love Lucy" episode where Ricky is attempting to read to Ricky Jr. and Lucy keeps correcting him. Because of words like "dough" and "bough" and such. I mean, we don't all need to be English majors to be able to understand each other. "A Clockwork Orange" is written in some made up language loosely based on english, yet it's heralded as one of the greatest literary works of the 20th century. After you've been reading that book for a while, you start to understand it. If you can pick up the basics of a language just by being around it enough, you should be able to roughly communicate what you are trying to say and be able to somewhat understand it.
If that makes any senses.
"I'm quietly judging you."-Tom Cruise as Frank TJ Mackey in Magnolia
It would make "senses" if the jargon in "A Clockwork Orange" had its roots in English. Most of it's loosely based on Russian. Badly corrupted Russian at that. Please communicate to me in Russian and thus prove your theory correct.
I agree with the poster before this. I'd rather not see the Internet drive the last few nails into the coffin of the English language, and we shouldn't even need grammar police. We all learn this crap in grade school. Or should we instead condone illiteracy?
Oh, I is sorry, mista gramma man. I's done made a typo when i be puttin a 's'es at the end of that word there sense. u shud jus lokk up al uz ilituret ppl in camppz end forse uz 2 lurn grramur or kill uz. that shure wud sho uz.
"I'm quietly judging you."-Tom Cruise as Frank "TJ" Mackey in Magnolia
While I'm all for being able to understand each other I don't really see it as applying in this case. "Less" versus "fewer" is one of the more ambiguous examples where understanding won't generally be affected. Plus, I saw this title as being more of a conscious reference to the commonly seen supermarket signs than as a grammar mistake.
I would say that there is a line between using language properly and just being overly strict. Yes, all language has rules that should be followed, but language is also fluid and evolving. I think things work best when a respect is shown for both of those facts.