Loved this bit of faux cultural grammatical (culturo-grammatical?) propriety from a favorite podcast. I still remember the Englishman who inadvertently illustrated to me the difference between how English English and American English treat collective nouns differently, that American English considers their number based on grammatical number, e.g. FIFA is an organization vs. the Eagles are a team, while English English treats them as plural regardless of their grammatical number, e.g. FIFA are an organization vs the Eagles are a team.
Was reading this article when I came across this and wondered. I had always practiced that any parenthetical expression within a sentence should / would not be punctuated; it is part of the sentence, and so relies on the punctuation of that sentence, similar to how an expression set off by dashes would work (no punctuation there). In a standalone parenthetical, the punctuation goes inside the parentheses because it is in effect its own sentence, albeit one set off by parentheses. But this made me doubt myself about and I did some research. Turns out I was actually correct (surprising gasp rather than snooty I told you so):
(from thepunctuationguide.com, which of the few that I looked at provided the most complete, concise, and clear explanation, covering the various permutations of punctuation and parentheses)
Saw this on Medium (apparently via Twitter; and, yes, I realize that Medium is a Twitter offshoot) and found it more amusing than expected. Also, moved the apostrophe. The apostrophe in the comic isn’t wrong; I just find it easier to imagine plural proofreaders than a lone proofreader (although therein might lie some of the humor…).
Saw this t-shirt and figured it was worth including: a nice example of not only English principal parts but also a verb whose participle is often misused.