Question for the (Grammar) Nazis

[kpenguin]

My friend sent me this e-mail:


Okay there's a bit of a problem, my family says that you can't say something like "when's the latest you can send that to me by" or "when's the latest you can come over. They say you have to replace latest with "earliest" and the sentence will be correct. What say you?

Oh yeah, explain why, preferably with links to some grammer webpage.

Now, I don't know why my friend thinks I am, but I am no great shakes at grammar. Could you guys help me out here?

[Player_Zero]

Logic to the rescue!

Common use of a phrase is commonly understood, naturally, and therefore fine to use in an informal context!

By definition however, it would make more sense to say 'earliest' though, wouldn't it? Since you want the object in question as fast as possible.

[BizzaroStormy]

yeah, as long as people can understand what you mean, it should't be a problem.

Kndia lkie how ploepe can raed tihs stecnee.

[Pinnacle]

"Latest" and "Earliest" are opposites, no? Depending on what you mean, seems like shouldn't be too hard to pick out the right word, right?

Seems like the first one should definitely be "earliest," assuming you want it asap. For the second one, I could imagine asking either question, depending on context--do you want them to come late or early?

[Rawhide]

When is the latest you can send that to me?
That would not be strictly correct as there is no condition, but the condition is implied.
When is the earliest you can send that to me?
That would be correct, grammar wise, but mean the opposite.
When is the latest you can send that to me and still have it arrive on time?
Could be one of the implied conditions.

When is the latest you can come over?
Suffers from the same lack of condition, but the condition may be implied by previous conversation.
When is the earliest you can come over?
Again, that would be correct, grammar wise, but mean the opposite.
When is the latest you can come over tonight?
Could be one of the implied conditions. The friend may then answer something like "Around 6pm, I don't want to walk in the dark."

[Serpentine]

...why would you want to know when is the latest something can be sent? :smallconfused: Wouldn't that generally be "never"?

While we're on the subject: for heaven's bloody sake people! It's "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". If you could care less, then obviously you care at least a bit, which entirely defeats the purpose of that phrase! :smallfurious:
<.<
>.>
:smallcool:

[Rawhide]

...why would you want to know when is the latest something can be sent? :smallconfused: Wouldn't that generally be "never"?

There's always a condition that would preclude never. The end of your life, the end of the postal service, the end of the world, the end of the universe, etc.

:eek: I'm having difficulty getting this article written!
:annoyed: When is the latest you can send that to me and still have it arrive before the newspaper goes to print?
:eek: The mail gets collected at 3 pm.
:annoyed: That's your deadline, if the article is not written by then you're fired!

[Arioch]

While we're on the subject: for heaven's bloody sake people! It's "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". If you could care less, then obviously you care at least a bit, which entirely defeats the purpose of that phrase! :smallfurious:

Ooh, are we doing personal grammar pet peeves? :smalltongue:

Splicing commas, people. There are rules about them for a reason. A comma is not allowed to seperate two main clauses. It just looks wrong.

Anyway, re the main question. I don't think there's anything wrong with "When's the latest you can come over?" in a grammatical sense. It just doesn't mean anything.

[FdL]

To OP: There's nothing wrong with the sentence itself. As the mod put it, there's slight difference in meaning, being that encoded in the choice of earliest or latest. The correct use depends on the context.

Now, if the person who uses the expression is using one word when they're meaning the opposite, that's clearly wrong.

If we're on pet peeves, I'd like to point out that the title of the thread sounds quite wrong. This use of parentheses implies that the word contained inside can be optional. So it looks like you're asking this question to all the "nazis" in the forum (?), and possibly to a subset of them, which are the "grammar" ones.

I don't think that was your intention. I think it reads best if you write it like:


Question for the "Grammar Nazis",

where you'd be adopting an attitude of distancing yourself from the quoted term by using some sort of reported speech.

Does anyone agree to this?

[Arioch]

If we're on pet peeves, I'd like to point out that the title of the thread sounds quite wrong. This use of parentheses implies that the word contained inside can be optional. So it looks like you're asking this question to all the "nazis" in the forum (?), and possibly to a subset of them, which are the "grammar" ones.

I don't think that was your intention. I think it reads best if you write it like:


Question for the "Grammar Nazis",

where you'd be adopting an attitude of distancing yourself from the quoted term by using some sort of reported speech.

Does anyone agree to this?

Sounds good to me.

[Tallis]

"When the latest you could send that to me?" works fine, though it's an odd question to ask. You should drop the "by" at the end though. I see no problems with "when's the latest you could come over?". If you change the word to ealier it totally changes the meaning and makes no difference grammatically.

I'll also add my vote for "grammar nazis" not (grammar) nazis. I like to think there are no Nazis on the forum.

My personal favorite pet peeve is people spelling rogue as rouge. Different word people!! I realize it's a spelling issue not grammar, but I figure it still fits in the same broad category.

[Griever]

While we're on the subject: for heaven's bloody sake people! It's "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". If you could care less, then obviously you care at least a bit, which entirely defeats the purpose of that phrase! :smallfurious:
<.<
>.>
:smallcool:

Completely and utterly agree. Also, people, seriously! The word "past" ONLY deals with time, there is a helpful little word "passed" to be used when appropriate.

Inner Grammar Nazi :smallsmile:

[Pinnacle]

While we're on the subject: for heaven's bloody sake people! It's "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". If you could care less, then obviously you care at least a bit, which entirely defeats the purpose of that phrase! :smallfurious:
<.<
>.>
:smallcool:
*Applauds*
Also--"they're," "their," "there," "its," "it's," "your," and "you're" are all totally different words that aren't related (Okay, some of them are slightly related by virtue of having the same base pronoun).

Apparently a writer at the local news station just got fired because he didn't know "there," "their," and "they're." How did he get the job in the first place?

Although, admittedly, I've gotten so used to people using all of those words wrong that I tend to get mad whenever I see them, then occasionally realize that they're actually used correctly. Perhaps I spend too much time on internet forums?


To OP: There's nothing wrong with the sentence itself. As the mod put it, there's slight difference in meaning, being that encoded in the choice of earliest or latest. The correct use depends on the context.

Slight? They're opposites.

[Serpentine]

While those idiotic mistakes really annoy me (especially in professional signage and official documents :smallfurious:), I must admit I've been finding myself making them lately :smallsigh: "Than" and "then" is another one.

[Pinnacle]

"Than" and "then" is another one.

Oh, I always have to think about those.
If it helps, "then" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/then) is generally for time, "than" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/than) is for comparison.

[Arioch]

The word "past" ONLY deals with time, there is a helpful little word "passed" to be used when appropriate.

What about "the car went past" or "past the post office"?

Since this is rapidly turning into a "vent your silly grammar grievances" thread, I'd like to add that apostrophes really aren't that hard. If you're consistently putting phrases like "CD's here" and "employee's wanted" on signs and so on, you probably shouldn't be making those signs in the first place.

[Serpentine]

"passed" is the past-tense of "pass", a verb.
"past" is a word in itself, an adjective or a noun. The time example is just a particular usage of it to mean something that's gone.

edit: Also, hear hear.

[BugFix]

My friend sent me this e-mail:

Not to be too snarky, but those sentences just don't mean the same thing. This isn't a grammar issue, just a simple definition one. Asking when the "latest" you can do something is asking for last possible moment that task can be performed. Asking for "earliest" is a query for how soon something can be accomplished. Both might be appropriate depending on what you are trying to ask. From context, your friend seems to be intending to mean the latter.

Basically, I'd agree with your friend's family: he is not saying what he thinks he's saying. The plain meaning of the words is not what is intended. Maybe that's a non-standard usage in your dialect?

As far as grammar goes:


"when's the latest you can send that to me by"

This sentence does not begin with a capital, lacks a question mark at the end, and (gasp) ends with a preposition.

[valadil]

If you want to get really anal about it, but original sentences are incorrect because they end in a preposition. Personally I'd argue that come over is followed by an unstated "here" so that "over here" is a preposition phrase and "come over here" is a verb phrase, which can be used to end a sentence.

[Telonius]

"when's the latest you can send that to me by"

You want to end a sentence with a preposition...?!


That's the sort of English, up with which I will not put!

:smallbiggrin:

"What is the earliest time can you send that to me?" would be a better construction.

[Thufir]

Since this is rapidly turning into a "vent your silly grammar grievances" thread, I'd like to add that apostrophes really aren't that hard. If you're consistently putting phrases like "CD's here" and "employee's wanted" on signs and so on, you probably shouldn't be making those signs in the first place.

Oh, that really annoys me. Particularly when some of my classmates needed to go over apostrophes in GCSE English. I was all like, "WTF? I learned this 5 years ago."
Though technically that's punctuation rather than grammar.

[Arioch]

Though technically that's punctuation rather than grammar.

I have been out-pedanted. To think that I should live to see this day. :smalltongue: Perhaps I should update my statement to "grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling and other semantic issues"

By the way, has anyone ever used a word, only to then realise that the person you are talking to doesn't know what it means? And if you offer to explain it, you seem smug and pretentious. I hate that.

[Serpentine]

I once had to explain to a guy why plants are not, in fact, animals :smalleek: He seemed to have some issue over vegetarians...

[Arioch]

I once had to explain to a guy why plants are not, in fact, animals :smalleek: He seemed to have some issue over vegetarians...

I had to read that twice to make sure I'd got it right. He thought plants were animals? Seriously? Wow.

The only thing I've got which comes close to that is from my infant-school days. Our teacher told us that something was a bird if it lays eggs. I, a pedant even at that age, put my hand up and said "But what about the duck-billed platypus? That lays eggs." She glared at me and said "The duck-billed platypus is a bird."

EDIT: I'm not sure why, but I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Maybe we should make it a fixture.

[Thufir]

By the way, has anyone ever used a word, only to then realise that the person you are talking to doesn't know what it means? And if you offer to explain it, you seem smug and pretentious. I hate that.

I don't particularly mind feeling smug and pretentious. The problem I usually have is that while I can use the word perfectly correctly, I can't bring to mind an accurate definition of it.

[Tom_Violence]

I had to read that twice to make sure I'd got it right. He thought plants were animals? Seriously? Wow.

The only thing I've got which comes close to that is from my infant-school days. Our teacher told us that something was a bird if it lays eggs. I, a pedant even at that age, put my hand up and said "But what about the duck-billed platypus? That lays eggs." She glared at me and said "The duck-billed platypus is a bird."

EDIT: I'm not sure why, but I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Maybe we should make it a fixture.

What you should've done is thrown a snake at her.

I once had a very long discussion with an entire group of my friends in which I desperately tried to explain to them that birds are animals. That was painful.

[Arioch]

I don't particularly mind feeling smug and pretentious. The problem I usually have is that while I can use the word perfectly correctly, I can't bring to mind an accurate definition of it.

Ah, I know what you mean. So someone asks you what it means and you open your mouth to give a definition and then realise that you're not actually sure. So you're reduced to waving your hands about and going "Well...sort of...kinda like..."

At least, that's how it happens with me.

@ Tom_Violence: Unfortunately, British infant schools have a no-snake policy for exactly this reason.

[Lemur]

"when's the latest you can send that to me by"

You want to end a sentence with a preposition...?!



:smallbiggrin:

"What is the earliest time can you send that to me?" would be a better construction.

The problem with telling people not to end their sentences with a preposition is that it sets you up for the obvious joke:

"When's the latest you can send that to me by, jackass?"

...Although that's moving more into pragmatics.

[Pinnacle]

"when's the latest you can send that to me by"

You want to end a sentence with a preposition...?!



:smallbiggrin:

"What is the earliest time can you send that to me?" would be a better construction.

Actually, it's more like "What is the earliest time by which you can send that to me?"
Hence the relevance of that quote. Prepositional phrases are often understood without being spelled out--technically it's still wrong, but everyone knows what you mean and it doesn't really matter.

[valadil]

Actually, it's more like "What is the earliest time by which you can send that to me?"
Hence the relevance of that quote. Prepositional phrases are often understood without being spelled out--technically it's still wrong, but everyone knows what you mean and it doesn't really matter.

In speech I agree. Sometimes you get to the end of a sentence and realize the preposition should have come earlier. In writing I'll go back and correct the sentence though.

[RTGoodman]

Some of you will probably find this (http://www.englishfailblog.com/2008/07/06/official-syllabus-collection/)moderately funny. It's a collection of user-submitted "fails" regarding the English language. Try going to the older ones, though, because most of the newer ones aren't really "fails" so much as just funny/silly pictures.

Bad grammar, punctuation, spelling, and such really annoy me, especially in formal or professional settings. I'm okay with imperfections in casual place (here,for instance), but one of our local newspapers apparently STILL hasn't figured out the difference between "it's" and "its" or "their," "there," and "they're." :smallannoyed:

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

I can only really remember one rule of grammar: Never have a preposition end the sentence you're working on. :smalltongue:

[Griever]

I can only really remember one rule of grammar: Never have a preposition end the sentence you're working on. :smalltongue:

Bor just won the thread. Wow...

[FdL]

Slight? They're opposites.

Sure, I'm just pointing the fact that in some context they can be used to express exactly the same. As in the OP's question. From a certain functional perspective, of course.


I can only really remember one rule of grammar: Never have a preposition end the sentence you're working on. :smalltongue:

I thought that was more a matter of style than hard grammaticality.

[Rawhide]

Sure, I'm just pointing the fact that in some context they can be used to express exactly the same. As in the OP's question. From a certain functional perspective, of course.

Some examples please?

[FdL]

Well, as I said, form the OP's example, despite the opposed semantic meaning of the words, the illocutionary force behind the sentence is the same, asking when he's going to come. I guess so, now you made me doubt.

[Rawhide]

Well, as I said, form the OP's example, despite the opposed semantic meaning of the words, the illocutionary force behind the sentence is the same, asking when he's going to come. I guess so, now you made me doubt.

But it's not asking when he's going to come, it is asking either "when is the earliest" or "when is the latest" that he can come. Those two are opposites and there would be a reason for asking one or the other.

"I need to get this done quickly, when is the earliest you can come over?"

"I have guests here still, when is the latest you can come over?"

[FdL]

But it's not asking when he's going to come, it is asking either "when is the earliest" or "when is the latest" that he can come. Those two are opposites and there would be a reason for asking one or the other.

"I need to get this done quickly, when is the earliest you can come over?"

"I have guests here still, when is the latest you can come over?"

Sure. You're right.

Then again, there would also be a valid context when asking either would mean the same. As in generally asking about when he's going to come.

[Rawhide]

Sure. You're right.

Then again, there would also be a valid context when asking either would mean the same. As in generally asking about when he's going to come.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see how and this is why I want to see an example. Neither of them are asking when he is coming over, both of them are asking him to choose a time based on a criteria (earliest or latest).

Asker: "When are you coming over?"
Him: "About 3pm."
Asker: "That's too soon as I have guests, when is the latest you could come over?"
Him: "About 6pm as I don't want to walk in the dark."
Asker: "Ok, that will be great."

[tyckspoon]

I thought that was more a matter of style than hard grammaticality.

It's one of the ones we inherited from prescriptivists who thought things should be more like Latin, isn't it? Like the thing about not splitting infinitives, which we shouldn't do just because it is completely impossible to do in a Romance language.