It was a note from upstairs. ItÂ was in response toÂ one I had sent up earlier. The verdict to my inquiry? Negative.
The negating adverbÂ usedÂ in the one-sentence message wasÂ the simple “No.” Good enough. Or not, apparently, because both lettersÂ were capitalized, underlined twice … and enclosed between two quotation marks. Just like I used it above, actually, sans capitalization and double underlining.
If I knew how to code double underlining in this post, I’d might have tried to duplicate it if not for fear of being unable to do justice in describing this hand-written “=NO=” asÂ noÂ ordinaryÂ adverb. You see, there’s a difference between having no socks and having “=NO=” socks – like if you came out wearing mismatched socksÂ as opposed toÂ no socks at all, I suppose.
I don’t advertise that I’m a bit of a grammar nazi.
And it’s not so much that I fear you won’t think I’m modest about my precise mastery of the English language. It’s more along the lines that I know you probably don’t care. So I spare you the drama. You’re welcome.
But I’m only recently reminded of this neuroticism I’ve had. Not long after I received that no[te] this morning, my co-workers used “overexceeded” in exclamation.
Overexceeded? I think I ground my teeth. The same way I do when I hear “irregardless.” Or when I seeÂ “their” for “there,” “your” for “you’re,” “should of” for “should have.”Â Yet, you see, I have some geek in me – so “UR” might even perplex me while the incorrect usage of “your” will drive me absolutely insane.
Have you no respect?? I can’t help but wonder. It’s the closest thing of mine to OCD tendencies; I can’t explain it. The pen is mightier than the sword. So here’s my disclaimer when IÂ correct you. I’m showing concern. My correcting you, alone, speaks volumes of how much I care about your English.
What say you? Can “very unique” happen? Or would that be another mistakeÂ of superfluous speech?