The House of Grammar Part 3: Return to the House of Grammar

I realize the last blog post was very much "I have a child and I'm going to talk about the fact relentlessly until you have the choice either to claw your own eyes out or run screaming." But regardless of the content, I enjoy talking about language in general, and watching a new person learn language for the first time is certainly educational for me as well.
That having been said, I will return to some more amusing content, again condensed, reorganized, and reimagined (now with extra CG content) from what I originally posted on Facebook. I bring you some simple grammar rules:

They're, their, and there: Would you ever comfort someone complaining about how their boyfriend always thinks they're right by saying "They're. They're." No? There you go. That would be insensitive.
Than and Then: Before being suborned by the English language, these were the two most common Vietnamese names. Than meant "The difference between two things" while Then meant "Something that occurred in the past." Misusing them is racist.  Are you a racist?
It's and its: It's pretty simple: Its is used when it's is not appropriate to describe its possession of something it's in ownership of. It's is a conjunction of it and is, which is its only reason for being, isn't it?
Which or that: That is used when a sentence contains a restrictive clause (when you begin a slow clap while juggling snakes that repetitively strangle and suffocate their prey) and which is used when a sentence contains a nonrestrictive clause (when you begin a slow clap while juggling snakes that don't). If you don't juggle snakes, this rule is fairly moot.
Who or whom: This is one of those rules where if you have to ask the question, you just shouldn't bother worrying about it. Because you can bet those people who already know when it's appropriate to use whom are watching and waiting for someone to misuse it so they can pounce all over the fact, likely spilling their tea in the process. And those people who use who and whom without really paying attention to the rules already don't care, and are probably right about fifty percent of the time, and will frankly have your back if some snobby whomish gentleman gets all up in your face for adding an "m" to your "who" when you shouldn't. Screw 'em.

I before E except after C: This is an easy one. Without this we would end up pronouncing "piece" as though it were some sort of Eastern exercise/meditation technique involving baked goods.
Q must always be followed by U: Without this, we would end up with more words like Qat, which is a word that ONLY scrabble players know
Animals must always have confusing male and female terms: All I need to do here is give you an example. Gander. "Hey Bob! What an interesting sight! Why don't you grab that male goose and join me?" is a very strange turn of phrase.
Never end a sentence with a preposition: as discussed in part 1, this would mean you would have to go backwards in time and space to end your sentence, which would be awkward for both of you, the net result being you'd be just finishing your sentence while you were just starting yours.
Adjectives describe nouns and pronouns: In addition to the other uses of adjectives, this is their job. They get paid for it. They're like word agents. "Metacarpus is totally the intermediate part of the hand skeleton! He's 100% between the phalanges distally and the carpus! If you need a hand you definitely can't do without him!"
Passive voice is always wrong: And this makes him very frustrated. Once, just once, he'd like to be the star of the show. Maybe get a montage. Or step out of obscurity into the limelight and convince the head cheerleader to give him a second chance, you know, since when she gave him the first chance he had her convinced he was actually active voice, who is really a douche. In other news: run on sentences are also bad things.
You shouldn't split infinitives: I think this is just a good general rule for any situation where the word "infinite" is used. It's like multiplying by zero. All you get is more of the same.
"Ten items or less" should be "ten items or fewer": I only agree with this because I prefer a lower volume.

Some singular animal names are the same as their plural names: Sheep. While I may once have found this confusing, I find it much less confusing than if I were to have to use the word "sheeps" and imagine the piles of wool and mutton littering a farmer's fields.
English has no male/female declension: this is true. And probably a good thing. It spells disaster for relationships to make words gender dependent. How many men are already in trouble because Siri follows their instructions better than their spouse, to whom "find me a screwdriver" can mean anything from "What I actually want is a hammer, because, you know, I never actually say what I mean and in times of stress get confused so if you bring me what I actually want rather than what I say it will make me so happy I will burst out in spontaneous salsa dancing and massage giving and won't bash my face into the electrical socket I'm currently trying to fix." to "please mix me a drink." Having words defined by gender is bad. I mean, what if barbecue was a female noun?

Canadians say aboot: This is not really a grammar rule but more a question of pronunciation, and only correct inasmuch as Americans add extra emphasis to the letter U. Listen to yourself some day. To someone who says aBAUUUUT we really do sound like we're describing footwear. Same with house. God knows why Americans think we run like lemmings when someone cries out warning of a rampaging bull moose. I imagine some of them spend time in entomological dictionaries trying to find out how to get rid of an infestation of Screws Loose.

So now that you understand some of the basics, I'll consider introducing you to some of the more advanced rules another time.  Maybe.  If you're good.  And eat your vegetables.  No promises, though.