I received this submission from reader Joanna:
Dear Vandal,
Do you accept submissions? If so, please accept mine. Note not only the obvious “Your” but also the mysterious lowercaseness of the lone pronoun. Oh, how I wished I had a Sharpie in my pocket, but at least I had my trusty camera phone.
This sign amuses me on two different levels. First of all, there’s the obvious error.
But beyond that…what does a fish eating a worm have to do with walking and/or driving across a property?!
Odd. (It does remind me of a sign my sister and I begged our parents to get for the backyard. It had an angry cartoon fish on it yelling, “Hey! Who peed in the pool?” We thought it was hilarious. They wouldn’t oblige.)
For the record, I always love submissions — so send them in!
Also, I’m off to Vegas this weekend. I’ll be back on Tuesday, which is sure to be a wonderful, wonderful day here in America!
The Grammar Vandal 
I bet their property offers access to a fishing spot that is public…but for which there is no real public access. That sort of crap happens all the time… And even if their sign leaves just a tad wanting in terms of grammar…it’s really nice of them to post this sign nonetheless. A lot of landowners whose property blocks the only access to some public thing (lakes, hiking trails etc.) get uber-pissy about people crossing their property.
The illustration is fantastic. I’m actually disappointed in the grammar offense and serial capitalization because otherwise that sign would be the BEST SIGN EVER.
“Our” is an adjective, not a pronoun
Pingback: Our Dumb Blog » Blog Archive » Grammar Vandal
Katie:
Do you understand what the sign says? If so, then the authors of the sign have communicated their intended meaning, and the sign is therefore perfectly effective. Since orthographic conventions don’t reflect any deep connection between letters, sounds, and concepts (in fact, the relation is quite arbitrary), the relevant standard of evaluation is a communicative one. And by that standard there’s nothing wrong with this sign. If anything, the more significant observation is that the sign is, as Kim notes, quite courteous. Or do you think it more important that we distinguish “white” from “wight” than that we distinguish right from wrong?
In general, your website reflects a conception of language advocated by the prescriptive grammarians of the 18th century. The last two centuries of linguistic study have demonstrated that their conception is entirely mistaken. I would encourage you to bring your understanding of language up to date, rather than continuing to propagate misinformation. A good place to start is Fromkin, et al., An Introduction to Language, 8th edition (Wadsworth, 2006), a reliable and accessible introduction to current linguistics. Duty aside, I think you’ll also enjoy it.
Have fun in Vegas.
Check out this sign.
http://pleindepanique.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-most-wonderful-time-of-year.html
Dear A Concerned English Professor,
Aside from the false comparison in your comment, “Or do you think it more important that we distinguish “white” from “wight” than that we distinguish right from wrong?” you have a wonderful point. However, spelling conventions are meant to facilitate communication. When they aren’t followed, communication is made more difficult. Therefore, rather than ask, “Do you understand what the sign says?”, the appropriate question for this conversation is, “Does the sign communicate the intended message in the most straighforward manner?”. Clearly it does not.
“Our” is an adjective, not a pronoun
…or maybe it is a pronoun.
“Our” is a possessive pronoun.
In other news, people who make elementary grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors embarrass themselves and those they represent. Yes, living languages are in a constant state of change, and people’s fingers do betray them into typos visible to everyone but themselves. Nevertheless, efforts to conform to accepted standards of orthographical behavior, like efforts to suppress belches and not scratch hidden itches during business meetings, demonstrate respect for one’s interlocutors and for oneself.