Sunday, January 13, 2008

To be, or not to be...

There is a look that I get whenever someone makes this sort of grammar mistake within earshot of me. My eyes widen noticeably, I bite my lower lip, and my entire body actually goes tense. I simply cannot handle when somebody omits the very necessary "to be" part of a phrase, like they did above. It's not "need replaced," it's "need to be replaced," you fucking moron!

I mean, if you want to give others the impression that you watch NASCAR races religiously, drive around in your pickup truck (while you're wearing a wife-beater and Confederate flag-patterned doo-rag) armed with a shotgun and a spotlight while hoping to chase down a pathetic deer, say "GIT 'ER DONE!" a lot, and are missing a few teeth (but have a hell of a unibrow and mullet to make up for it), then by all means, write like this. But if you don't want to come across as a total hick, then please use the short and useful phrase to be when it's necessary to do so.

Thanks to JUSTIN for sending in this error. When I read it, I swear sparks flew out of my eyes! (Justin's picky about this sort of thing too, which is one reason why we're friends and why I never cringe when I'm opening e-mails from him!)


Gloom Raider said...

Actually, I've seen a few such instances in the work of a writer from, I believe, Ohio. I always thought it was a regionalism rather than an out-and-out typo.

Thanks for the gratuitous South-bashing, though. Can't ever get enough of that in the regular media.

The Grammarphile said...

If it's indeed a regionalism, then I seriously NEVER want to live in the area in which that sort of speech is considered correct. I will ex-freakin'-PLODE. :)