Well, I am a Grammar God too! My English teacher would be proud if she knew how good I could write. (Yes, forgive me.
)
Although I really must take contention with this quiz. It acts like grammar or language is a static concept, with all players concerned in complete agreement. If I might break again from my aforementioned title, IT AIN'T SO!
It makes one think just what is grammar ... is it a set of rules that never changes which we must adhere to arbitrarily, or is it a reflection of common usage -- or something in between? I always keep in mind what my former English teacher told me: the moment any great language dies is when the first grammar book is published. Really, a lot of what we are told about "grammar" is arbitrary or just plain wrong ...
Specifically, I refer to these questions:
(1) Snuck has been in use since the 19th century, and Merriam-Webster says it has "risen to the status of ... equality with sneaked."
(2) That and which can both be used here, "although some handbooks say otherwise." (Merriam-Webster)
(10) "It is clear that the rules laid down have never very accurately reflected the actual usage." (Merriam-Webster)
(11) This seems to quibble about split infinitives. See what Merriam-Webster has to say! "Even though there has never been a rational basis for objecting to the split infinitive, the subject has become a fixture of folk belief about grammar." It goes on to say that most grammarians, because of such ardent misbelief by many, advise to only use a split infinitive in the case of clarity. This brings up a good point. When you have the choice between "good grammar" and "good sense" always chose the latter. The goal of writing is not to adhere arbitrarily to some set of imaginary principles; rather, it should be clarity, the goal should be to convey some message to the reader -- yes, rules are needed for this, but rules for rules' sake are not (especially when these are only rules depending on who you ask!). [Anyone spot the split infinitive I used?]
(15) The distinction between "less" and "few" is, at best, a traditional that isn't and never really has been strict. (Merriam-Webster)
(16) It always makes me laugh when teachers are so intent about where a student puts punctuation in reference to quotation marks. In the US the tradition has been to put punctuation inside, while in some other countries it is just the opposite. Why? Some sacred rule or guiding principle that served our forefathers well? Bah! It was to save a few bucks. It had to do with the font type used by most editors and how to save space.
(17) Both "alright" and "all right" are al[l ]right. (Merriam-Webster)
Well, I better get back to some good, solid engineering ... where rules and principles are pretty much agreed upon!