MLB Baseball?

For me it depends on if you are quoting someone (punctuation inside quote) or just using a phrase like “woke” (punctuation outside).

Quote is full sentence: inside. Quote is part of sentence or word: outside.

Eg:

“Oh no!” he gasped.

And

Apparently she's “done with me”!

Love, an editor.

This is how you're supposed to do it in Dutch.

The teacher said "silence!".

Vs

The teacher said "silence"!

Mean something completely different. Although a few large literature publishers do punctuation before bracket because of translation ease, and novels almost never contain partial quotes anyway AND they include the optional comma at all times, which causes

"Silence!," said the teacher.

Shudder

Especially also when you're using them to be facetious.

He's "talented".

He's "talented."

That's not just you, that's people who know the rules of the English language and don't care about Latin or what dead idiots thought.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with

I like ending my sentences with and.

I'm never gonna give it up.

I spells it like I says it

This is a thing up with which I will not put.

I see what you did there.

Nothing about which to be ashamed. 🤓

There's a funny bit in "the last man on earth" where Kristen Schaal's character always corrects people when they end their sentences with a preposition. It shows how much more ridiculous her correction sounds.

... Not a great show, but that bit was pretty funny.

Adverbs as a rule can go anywhere in a sentence, so split away, I say!

Anyone who has a problem with singular they can eat my non-binary ass.

I like y'all're

Because have? When and how has that ever been used?

Would've: fine. Would have: fine. Would of: me go mental! Why do people do this?! Argh!

For your example, to make the list clearer in writing I would usually do one of the two.

I like Jazz, Rock and Roll, and Classical.

Or

I like Jazz, Rock & Roll and Classical.

(Or the other way around if a list item includes "and" specifically)

I often write in a way that flows better when talking, so I usually try to find ways like the above to make that kind of flow look more understandable in writing too. I don't think your and-less version flows well, in my way of speaking at least. But I also wouldn't tell you to stop doing that, because I can understand it, and that matters most in reality.

To me, it sounds like an incomplete list. With the 'and X', I know that X is the last thing in that set. I guess that only really matters in cases where you want to absolutely show that a set only contains certain members.

An “and” before the last item tells you it’s an inclusive list. An “or” before the last item tells you it’s a pick one. A “nor” tells you it wasn’t any of those. It’s word to wait to the last item to know what the list was, but English is a screwed up language.

You call yourself a grammar nazi, and don't use the oxford comma?

This is the only comment in this entire threat I agree with so far

Moosepodes and goosepodes

I really like when non-native speakers say persons.

Regularisation goes brrrr.

Moosen

Moos and goos

Some would say it's fewer correct, however.

The fact I understand all the vocabulary you used embiggens me.

i like to omit them when i shouldnt

(i use gesture typing and used to be so aggressively into coming off as too cool to punctuate that i would manually remove apostrophes. i have since ceased because i actually don't care anymore and this is probably a metaphor about being a poser. I've learned NOTHING)

A lot of languages are pro-drop and do this when the context is clear (and sometimes when it isn't). I remember learning Japanese and people saying "we would never do that in English!". My counterexample was always that, if someone came to my house and asked where the beer is, I'd say "fridge." because that's all the information the hearer needs.

And we can drop "the" sometimes, "close gate".

In Spanish, the conjugation of the verb lets you drop the subject, which is eloquent.

“¿Qué haces?”

“Estoy llegando llevando comida.”

While I might use them interchangeably, as a non-native I would think "need to" is supposed to mean that the situation came out of necessity, such as feeling the need to pee or resorting to selling your car because of an empty wallet, while "have to" is more like the result of some rules or discipline, such as showing up to work in time - but I understand that the line between the two can be rather blurry.

As for my thing: there are a few shortened words in my language (similarly to the English "hubby", "preggo", etc.) that got shortened according to pronunciation, and not the original (longer) word, having a different spelling at the start (as if "circle" got shortened to "circ", but spelled as "cirk"). It feels like a kid came up with the spelling, and now it's the official form. It's bugging my inner spelling nazi every time I see it.

It's pretty much a dead language feature anyway, at least in my area. Whom sounds pretentious as hell if you actually say it. Like, you'd get away about as well with thee or thou.

If you can replace the word with “he”, you always use who. If you can replace the word with “him”, you can use whom if you want to.

Whom did you lead into battle?

I led him into battle.

Who ate all the cake?

He ate all the cake.

The key takeaway is you can always use who and it will be correct, because who is both a subject and an object. So, if you don’t want to bother with the rule, just stick to who and you can’t go wrong.

To whom/for whom is supposed to be the rule for when to use whom, but in American English it sounds way too formal.

if you are familiar with object vs subject in grammar you already know the rule, who is used when it's the subject, whom when the object:

Who is that?

That's who ate my ice cream.

Whom did you give ice cream to?

The ice cream went to the one whom I saw first.

This rule is the same as knowing when to use she or he vs when to use her or him, it's no different.

However, most people don't use whom correctly and it can just be avoided entirely, most people will just use who as the object anyway and it will sound more natural to them:

Who did you give ice cream to?

The ice cream went to the one who I saw first.

Using whom in these cases can make you sound formal or fancy, and draws attention.

There's a pretty trivial rule for getting this right. Phrase your sentence using who/whom as a question. Respond with he/him. If your response contains a "he", your initial statement should be "who"; if it contains a "him" then you're looking at a "whom" use.

• ex: "To who/whom should the gold be given?" -> "To him" -> "whom"
• ex: "Who/whom wants the gold?" -> "He wants the gold" -> "who"
• ex: "Who/whom did you see at the party?" -> "I saw him" -> "whom"
• ex: "The man who/whom called earlier is here" -> "Who/whom called?" -> "he called" -> "who"

I feel like "free reign" means the same thing as "free rein" anyway. As in you're not shackled in your rule; a despot. "He has free reign over his domain."

… fine I’ll do it.

That begs the question, how is it used properly?

I've always argued for the side of "if your point comes across and is understood as intended, your grammar or lack thereof, does not matter in the slightest"