Potpourri, while I agree with your main point, I think some of your examples are flawed. When replacing "must" with "have to", the "to" is not part of the following infinitive, go. in "I have to go", go is a bare infinitive. the "to" is part of the verb "have-to" not part of "to go" "Must" is a defective verb, i.e., one that does not have an infinitive. the phrase "to have to" (with two to's!) actually functions as the infinitive of must. It's I-have-to + the bare infinitive "go", NOT "I-have" + the infinitive "to go". It's even clearer if you use the future tense. "I will have to go soon" cannot be replaced by "I will must go soon". The phrase "have to" functions as the bare infinitive of "must".

This is really very simple. "The Valdezes" is the correct plural. "The Valdez's" would be the possessive, not the plural.

In the past, I would have agreed with Janet and have often pointed out this misuse as one of my pet peeves. However, John's earlier post above is really quite compelling. I suggest you all read the link he posted. Clearly, the situation is more complex than we would like to think.

Personally, I still (correctly) use disinterested to mean unbiased and uninterested for, well, not interested. But now, I'm not so quick to criticize those who use disinterested to indicate a lack of interest, especially those who perhaps correctly mean an extreme lack of interest, "the opposite of" interested.

Taryn, "everybody" is not plural. It's "Everybody is going to the party", not "Everybody are going to the party", right?

To Anonymous and Bee Tee-Ess, it could just as easily be argued that there is an implicit"...are in this picture." following "Greg and I...". That's the very problem. There's no way to know just what the implicit sentence is. Um, that's what makes it implicit.

And as for "insert friend's name and me", that's not right (or relevant) either. It would be "insert friend's name and mine."

I think it's been pretty well covered as to why you normally would not use "may you..." to begin a question. However, in the imperative form, "may you..." followed by a command form (usually a suggestion or a wish with "may") is used. For example, "May you have a pleasant stay" is perfectly ok. Note, in this case, the sentence is not a question. By the way, in "May it please the Queen..." directly above, such use of "may" is also the imperative, not a request per se, even if followed by one.

David, I think you got that backwards (it's also a bit of an oversimplification). In most cases, "dis" is stronger than "un", not the other way around.

It's a "fallacy of the excluded middle" sort of thing. Here's an example:

Let's consider love and hate. Let's assume for this discussion that they are polar opposites. Now, there's a middle ground, neither love or hate, let's say, indifference. Of course there can be a whole spectrum of feeling in between as well. If someone is "unloved" then that means "not loved". It does not mean "hated". Any feeling of indifference, or hate, or anything in that spectrum in between love and hate, anything less than love, is included in "unloved". Unloved is not the opposite of loved, it only means not loved.

Now let's compare "disliked" and "liked". "Disliked" does not mean "not liked". It is actually the polar opposite of "liked". If you are indifferent towards someone then you do not dislke them. You may not like them, but you don't dislike them either.

Un- is the equivalent of "not" which includes the middle ground. Dis- is "the opposite of" which does not include the middle ground. So, I would have to say that "dis", not "un", is the stronger degree of negation.

I also mentioned that this is an oversimplification. "Dis-" has several other definitions and both are used in a variety of contexts, so my comments may not apply in every case.

Chuck, you have touched on one of my pet peeves, people who criticize "Now I lay me down to sleep...", saying that lay should be lie, when, in fact, "lay" in the little poem is correct. I guess that's the opposite of your pet peeve.

Hutch, AO, I think you both missed something. The word "sudden' is also a noun. The use is archaic, but means a sudden occurrence. Use this obsolete definition and all of a sudden, the expression makes perfect grammatical sense.

Pb, I agree that we read in word "chunks" or "grabs", but doesn't that actually suggest that double-spacing after periods improves readability? Most people absorb maybe two to three, perhaps up to five words per "chunk", not two or more sentences per chunk. Having sentences separated by spaces would make it easier to "grab" the words in related groups according to sentence structure. Yes, some approaches to speed-reading do emphasize grabbing larger word chunks per glance, but most people don't read like that. Regardless, how could blurring the sentence structure increase comprehension, even for a faster reader? Of course, adding unusual or unexpected space between words can negatively impact readability. By the way, I'm not advocating double-spacing, per se. Plenty of reasons, both for and against, have been offered. Write according to your preference and the rules appropriate for your venue.