Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Grammar rules you can stop sticking to" video.

@TheInkPitOx It's not uneducated it's AAVE in which the double negatives are a legitimate grammar construct and oftentimes not using them is grammar mistake.
8
They are, and sometimes the "correct" grammar is not accepted as correct by really anybody. For example it's not "He is taller than I" as is commonly taught, it's "He is taller than I am" if we're being technical as the copular be needs the same thing on both sides. That being said, nobody is likely to say either one, they're probably going to say "He is taller than me" which is what it would be if we hadn't lost a case since branching off from German.
3
@youtubegarbage7876 Nope, so, it's fewer sand then? Or fewer furniture? Fewer hasn't ever been used to refer to uncountable objects and the way that the word "items" is used at any grocery store I've ever been is a lot closer to being uncountable than countable. Or do the grocery stores where you live decline to check people out that have duplicate items putting them significantly over the limit?
3
I will say that technically, Romans could split infinitives, but I don't know that anybody ever did. It would be the equivalent of when English speakers insert words into other words. For example Abso-freaking-lutely. And, I have a feeling that there were probably enough issues in doing so due to things like a lack of word separation and punctuation that it would have rendered the passage more or less unreadable.
1
Isn't part of the issue with none that it's effectively a collective? If "not one" of the people here has or does something, that implies that there's a group of people not having or knowing it. So, using the singular with it can be OK and so can being the plural, it comes down to how you usually use collective nouns.
1
@ Less is the grammatically correct one for the checkout lane. Less is typically used with uncountable items and the way the rule is usually applied, it's not actually items of count below that number. It's more like times the cashier has to scan unique bar codes. So, less is much more in keeping with it's use and meaning than fewer would be.
1
@mleadenham1 TBH, my assumption is not. There's a couple issues in doing so, one being that Latin depends on the ending and position of words to know where one word starts and another word ends. Putting a word inside of a word in that fashion would probably run into similar issues that you see in Mandarin where the users of the language struggle to imagine what a word would become if you give it different tones. There's also a general lack of punctuation, we can do infixes in writing in part because we're used to hyphens being used to graft words together and the spaces can help to keep track of whether we're onto a new word or not. That wasn't generally the case with Latin. Romans may well have done it when speaking, but that's a lot harder to know, but given what I've suggested already, I doubt that they'd be deviating in that fashion from what written Latin could do or it would show up in the written form eventually.
1
@alveolate TBH, I think grammatical form spotting could be a much better hobby than those a-holes that police other people's grammar and spelling.
1