So , I was choosing Christmas Cards today

[Bahhhhhumbug]

despite my name and noticed a couple of nice ones for my DBs and SILs , until that is l put my glasses on and read:

'For a Special Brother and your Wife'

and

'For a Special Brother and your Family'.

Surely this is wrong?

The assistant putting the cards out looked at me like this when l commented on them though she was a young girl possibly only fluent in text speak . My DD also couldn't see the problem either.

I am starting to doubt myself.

'My DD also couldn't see the problem either'

It's the to / for thing?

Oh and they were both 'Hallmark'.

Well actually it's wrong on so many levels.

I'm guessing it should read either:

For a special brother and his wife

Or

To a special brother and to your wife

Meh. Communication is about getting the message across. What message do you want to convey?

FFS !!

Bad grammar!
Hope you didn't buy them.

You're right, that would bother me too.

So, 'his'?

And his?

Thank you ! I am going to email Hallmark now I know I'm not going daft .

Melanie I just wanted cards for my DHs two DBs and their wives. So 'To a DB and SIL' or 'To a DB and his Wife' or even 'Happy Christmas DB and SIL/your Wife'.

.

No I did not buy them !

I took pictures of them on my mobile though and the assistant looked at me like this> again .

To my darling brother and to your wife

To my dearest brother and his wife

To my special brother-in-law and his latest wife

It dies seem a bit splitting hairs, sorry. Is the message ambiguous the way it's worded?

What message Melanie ? - the one inside the card ? I didn't get that far as the front just screamed 'WRONG' at me , not ambiguous , just wrong !

Oh and my dad passed away last year and l was reading a copy of his obituary the other night and noticed a screamer in that too. The funeral directors arranged the obituary from my verbal outline of what l wanted to say and ended it with the words:

'Everyone who knew 'Mydadsname' are welcome to attend'

Even though it was over a year ago (I was obviously too pre-occupied/upset to notice) I am now suitably mortified as I alone arranged the funeral and anyone noticing that error will (shock, horror) think it was mine as if !.

I can feel another email coming on , to the editor of the newspaper this time! It cost £70 to boot (!) and would have been approximately half that had the funeral directors not arranged it with the newspaper. But between them they still couldn't get the grammar right.

Don't even start me off about the stonemason who put a comma in front of 'and' on the headstone and at first flatly refused to correct it on the grounds I was being 'over fussy'.

Melanie one of my DBILs is on his third wife so your last suggestion would be very appropriate though my DSIL would kill me

The message that you are conveying when you send a card, not what's actually written on it. Was it Marshall Macluan who said "the medium is the message"?

So.....you're really saying: I want to send you a card at Christmas because you mean so much to me/ it's a tradition/ you sent me one so I have to reciprocate.

I am chosing this particular card because it has a jolly santa on it/ isn't particualrly religious/ is grammatically correct.

I am going to complain to Hallmark because I don't have nearly enough to do at this quiet time of the year/ they really appreciate being told their wrong / that will make a difference to the crimes against grammar perpetrated these days/ this is much more important than actually sending a card.

Grammar doesn't have rules as such, just conventions. These change over time. I can be as pedantic as the next woman about the misuse of "it's", but there's a time and place to fight those sort of battles.

Melanie I have bought them different (grammatically correct) cards and sent them. My relatives know nothing of this and (from your options) I send them a card ' because they mean so much to me'. I will complain to Hallmark ( again from your options) because (hopefully) 'that will make a difference to the crimes against grammar perpetrated these days'.

I don't consider myself 'fighting a battle' just pointing out a grammatical error which I feel is not just a change over time that has now become acceptable , but actually detracts from the message as it swings from talking about them to talking to them in the same sentence.

I wouldn't walk up to my neighbour for example , in the street and say 'Hello a neighbour, how's your family ? I am sure this has not become a general part or relaxing of our language.

Is it the "a" that you feel is incorrect? Maybe I'm missing the point here.

"Their" is now acceptable to replace "his or her". Now, granted it would be silly to have "his or her" after "brother".

My parents' card says "To a special daughter and son-in-law". Now, normally I hate the word "special - am I more special than their other daughters?

Well it's the 'a' (brother) and 'your' (wife) in the same sentence to the same person that I feel is incorrect. To 'a' brother and 'his' wife are acceptable together or 'To you DB' and 'your' wife.

I've lost the plot miself now

It is the mixture of talking about someone in the third person but at the same time addressing them directly that sounds wrong to me , I think .

Oh and yes I agree about the word 'special' on greeting cards and avoid ones for my DH with 'My special husband' on them as to me it sounds as if I have a mundane everyday husband and a 'special' one l keep in the wardrobe for special occasions .

Chortle, yes a special husband and an everyday one is a great idea!

It is exhausting being a pedant Melanie (actually 'exhausting being' doesn't sound right either!) don't you think ? Or is that 'Do you think?'

We were in NZ last year in a history museum in Wellington and one of the little information plaques mentioned 'fishes'. I visibly shuddered and almost fainted on aforementioned 'special' husband.

Apparently it's not a 'cultural variation' thing either it just slipped through the net somehow (no pun intended). At a museum though , I ask you !

Maybe I should become a recluse

But is fishes not an acceptable plural? Isn't it "loaves and fishes" in The Bible?

Well I think nowadays it is more acceptable but certainly when l was at school in the sixties/seventies it was an absolute no-no. It wasn't in the dictionary then either and was considered grammatically incorrect. Possibly because there was no need to say fishes as fish covered it really.

But I think it can technically be used as a plural for several species of fish in scientific terms now but not as a plural for say three goldfish. In the museum the plaque was about one particular species of fish and it said 'these fishes habitate the waters of........'

It just looked so wrong , my old English teacher would be spinning in her grave, put it that way.

I don't know about the bible reference maybe it's just old language and it was used then. as you say language evolves and has trends etc.

My wordspell isn't recognising 'habitate' now. Am I going completely insane? There is such a word surely

OP I agree absolutely with your card dilemma. But I think you need a little lie down now - I'm sure there is no such word as habitate! Inhabit would do.

The card problem is not really about grammar it's about internal consistency.