<strong>Sinewave doesn't understand simple subject/verb agreements. A great user of "they was" and "we was" and "your" instead of "you're" and vice versa.
You can tell how someone speaks in person by looking at how they communicate by other media.
Mistyping is fine. Hitting the N-key when you mean to hit the M-key is fine, they're right next to each other. But saying something like "they was" just shows how slow the mental processes must be in the brain telling the fingers to hit those keys.
Some call it nitpicking, I call it not being a moron.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for backing me up on the typo mini-debate. I was not exactly writing my dissertation there. Subject-verb agreement, keeping tenses in order, etc. are a lot less forgiving than some of the common errors I make becasue I type fast, like writing "coMfuse" as opposed to "coNfuse," capitalizing the first two letters of a word becasue I hold the shift key a fraction of a second too long, or, for example, typing "don;t" as opposed to "don't ." For some reason my finger just never reaches far enough to get the apostraphe but it seems to like that semicolon
Thanks for clearing up the British use issue. I did not know that. It still bugs me but if that is their proper way, I have no qualms about it.
Oh, one more. "Can not" is one word, "cannot." That is another one I see rampant on the internet.
I am not flaming anyone (or is it anybody? :cool: ) LOL that is one I always mess up, like do I "lie" down or do I "lay" down? Anyone know?
Anyway, I am not flaming anyone like I said, but just trying to be helpful, and if you take it any other way than accept it as the constructive criticism it is then I am sorry.
<strong>I do it before I smoke you, while I'm smoking you and after I'm done smoking you. It drives me absolutely insane.<hr></blockquote></strong>
You've never smoked me son. As a matter of fact in all our discussions on here your the one being roach clipped
[quote]<strong>
Here is the problem:
When you're (<-- look, "you & are" combined properly!) involved in a debate with someone and you say things like "they was" it is almost impossible to take anything you say seriously.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Your, you're, they was, they are again the point I was trying to get across got across. you just like to point out silly things that have no bearing on the argument to justify you being right.
[quote]<strong>
It throws my concentration off and it makes me wonder if I am debating with a middle school student or someone who is older and just not able to use semi-proper English.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
[quote]<strong>
It's almost disrespectful to those you're speaking to, it's like showing up at a job interview in houseshoes and a ratty bathrobe.
("What does it matter? I'm here ain't I? Your just stoopid!")
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well to get respect you have to earn it no? So far you haven't done anything to earn my respect. Guess what.. when I email my girlfriend I make sure all my Ps and Qs are crossed.
[quote]<strong>
My father's dog can get his point across, sinewave, and I'm sure he has a greater mastery of Doggiespeak than you do of our fair language.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah grover.. again your debates when losing center around personal attacks. I have enough self respect to stay away from such things most of the time. You tend to gravitate towards them thinking it will somehow discredit me and make you look in the "know".
<strong>While I do prefer the American standard in this case, there *is* a gray area.
Think about it.
"The Manchester United are winning."
"The Manchester United is winning."
"The Manchested United team is winning."
Which one sounds the best? ... And it doesn't only apply to British teams.
"The San Francisco Giants team is winning."
"The San Francisco Giants is winning."
"The San Francisco Giants are winning."
etc, etc.
It's not so clear cut.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Eugene, if the question is which one sounds the best, I think it is clear cut. Use is following a word that is singular, use are following a word that is plural, regardless of whether the entity being referred to is an individual or a group of individuals. If the question is which way is correct, it becomes a little fuzzy to me too.
Think about how we apply/misapply the rule to the verb "to be".
In plural form: they were, you were (you being a group)
In singular form: I was, he was, she was, you were
See the problem? If you apply the rule strictly, the last one is wrong. It should be "you was" because in this case "you" is an individual. I couldn't resist using you is in a sentence, but once again, that fits the rule for singular usage.
They are, you are...
I am, he is, she is, you is (not you are)
The solution might be to take up another language.
Doesn't the use of an adjective as a noun make it a special condition? That's a good angle. I have to admit I missed that, since I was focused on the singular/plural aspect.
I would bring up another common misuse, except I'm not sure who would accept it, so I won't.
allow me to preface my remarks by stating that i learned nearly all the english grammar i know via conversational context and bazooka-joe comics. i missed a lot of what the fifth grade had to offer after we gave our teacher a nervous breakdown.
that being said;
One entry found for irregardless.
Main Entrytir·re·gard·less
Pronunciationt"ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Functiontadverb
Etymologytprobably blend of irrespective and regardless
Datetcirca 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
=============================
Re: Ambivalence ;
"Ambivalent" is one of those words that doesn't sound like what it is.
a virtual diametric contradiction unto itself.
as per the additional mystery "R" in non-R words:
oil=earl
yikes! what's up with that?
i am a victim of the "'s" syndrome when it comes to the word "it" and the abbreviation "CD". i am working on it but its tough sometimes.
microsoft office has both a spell checker and a grammar checker built into it.
i might start using the evil suite more just to bone up.
killboy, have ya got somthin' against Capitol letters? Or is it capital? There's a principal there somewhere. Or is it principle? This thread is just making me cornfused.
Might as well throw in another one. Hate it when the word "their" is used when it should be he, or she, or he or she, or his, or her, or his or her. Not to mention there or they're. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
My biggest pet peeve is the use of the phrase "I could care less".
I have tried to explain this to my mother-in-law several times, and she just doesn't get it.
I tell her "If you 'could care less', then you must care about it a little bit.".
She comes back with "No, I don't, I could care less about it!"
I couldn't care less. There, that isn't so hard to understand is it?! I care so little about it that I couldn't possible care any less! Makes sense to me.
I also can't stand seeing someone write "I was gunna do that too."
<strong>My biggest pet peeve is the use of the phrase "I could care less". I have tried to explain this to my mother-in-law several times, and she just doesn't get it. I tell her "If you 'could care less', then you must care about it a little bit.". She comes back with "No, I don't, I could care less about it!"
I couldn't care less. There, that isn't so hard to understand is it?! I care so little about it that I couldn't possible care any less! Makes sense to me.
I also can't stand seeing someone write "I was gunna do that too." </strong><hr></blockquote>
murbot,
man i know what you mean! "Couldn't" and "gonna", how hard is that..er, are they?
<strong>Amorya, that makes the mistake even more glaring then...Think about it...
In American English:
"What team is winning?"
"Manchester United is"
vs
British English:
"Manchester United are"
One other thing, in British English, would you say, "What team are winning?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'd say "which team is winning?", because you're talking about teams. but when talking about a particular team, I'd use the plural. Not that I'm an expert at British grammar
Now I think about it, I'd accept both is or are for a team. Probably all the American influence we get over here. If I was speaking, it'd be Apple have released a new G5, not Apple has released a new G5. But I wouldn't really notice if someone said the other.
Comments
<strong>Sinewave doesn't understand simple subject/verb agreements. A great user of "they was" and "we was" and "your" instead of "you're" and vice versa.
You can tell how someone speaks in person by looking at how they communicate by other media.
Mistyping is fine. Hitting the N-key when you mean to hit the M-key is fine, they're right next to each other. But saying something like "they was" just shows how slow the mental processes must be in the brain telling the fingers to hit those keys.
Some call it nitpicking, I call it not being a moron.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for backing me up on the typo mini-debate. I was not exactly writing my dissertation there. Subject-verb agreement, keeping tenses in order, etc. are a lot less forgiving than some of the common errors I make becasue I type fast, like writing "coMfuse" as opposed to "coNfuse," capitalizing the first two letters of a word becasue I hold the shift key a fraction of a second too long, or, for example, typing "don;t" as opposed to "don't ." For some reason my finger just never reaches far enough to get the apostraphe but it seems to like that semicolon
Thanks for clearing up the British use issue. I did not know that. It still bugs me but if that is their proper way, I have no qualms about it.
Oh, one more. "Can not" is one word, "cannot." That is another one I see rampant on the internet.
I am not flaming anyone (or is it anybody? :cool: ) LOL that is one I always mess up, like do I "lie" down or do I "lay" down? Anyone know?
Anyway, I am not flaming anyone like I said, but just trying to be helpful, and if you take it any other way than accept it as the constructive criticism it is then I am sorry.
<strong>I do it before I smoke you, while I'm smoking you and after I'm done smoking you. It drives me absolutely insane.<hr></blockquote></strong>
You've never smoked me son. As a matter of fact in all our discussions on here your the one being roach clipped
[quote]<strong>
Here is the problem:
When you're (<-- look, "you & are" combined properly!) involved in a debate with someone and you say things like "they was" it is almost impossible to take anything you say seriously.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Your, you're, they was, they are again the point I was trying to get across got across. you just like to point out silly things that have no bearing on the argument to justify you being right.
[quote]<strong>
It throws my concentration off and it makes me wonder if I am debating with a middle school student or someone who is older and just not able to use semi-proper English.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
[quote]<strong>
It's almost disrespectful to those you're speaking to, it's like showing up at a job interview in houseshoes and a ratty bathrobe.
("What does it matter? I'm here ain't I? Your just stoopid!")
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well to get respect you have to earn it no? So far you haven't done anything to earn my respect. Guess what.. when I email my girlfriend I make sure all my Ps and Qs are crossed.
[quote]<strong>
My father's dog can get his point across, sinewave, and I'm sure he has a greater mastery of Doggiespeak than you do of our fair language.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah grover.. again your debates when losing center around personal attacks. I have enough self respect to stay away from such things most of the time. You tend to gravitate towards them thinking it will somehow discredit me and make you look in the "know".
There's a difference between making an occasional typo and making the same mistakes all the time...
<strong>While I do prefer the American standard in this case, there *is* a gray area.
Think about it.
"The Manchester United are winning."
"The Manchester United is winning."
"The Manchested United team is winning."
Which one sounds the best? ... And it doesn't only apply to British teams.
"The San Francisco Giants team is winning."
"The San Francisco Giants is winning."
"The San Francisco Giants are winning."
etc, etc.
It's not so clear cut.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Eugene, if the question is which one sounds the best, I think it is clear cut. Use is following a word that is singular, use are following a word that is plural, regardless of whether the entity being referred to is an individual or a group of individuals. If the question is which way is correct, it becomes a little fuzzy to me too.
Think about how we apply/misapply the rule to the verb "to be".
In plural form: they were, you were (you being a group)
In singular form: I was, he was, she was, you were
See the problem? If you apply the rule strictly, the last one is wrong. It should be "you was" because in this case "you" is an individual. I couldn't resist using you is in a sentence, but once again, that fits the rule for singular usage.
They are, you are...
I am, he is, she is, you is (not you are)
The solution might be to take up another language.
Gregg
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>
See, it's "The United" and somebody has decided to use an adjective as a noun...that screws everything up.
I would bring up another common misuse, except I'm not sure who would accept it, so I won't.
<strong>While I do prefer the American standard in this case, there *is* a gray area.
Think about it.
"The Manchester United are winning."
"The Manchester United is winning."
"The Manchested United team is winning."
Which one sounds the best? ... And it doesn't only apply to British teams.
"The San Francisco Giants team is winning."
"The San Francisco Giants is winning."
"The San Francisco Giants are winning."
etc, etc.
It's not so clear cut.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Manchester United? It's just Manchester United - it's a team name. And I'd still say Manchester United are winning.
In American English:
"What team is winning?"
"Manchester United is"
vs
British English:
"Manchester United are"
One other thing, in British English, would you say, "What team are winning?"
that being said;
One entry found for irregardless.
Main Entry
Pronunciation
Function
Etymology
Date
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
=============================
Re: Ambivalence ;
"Ambivalent" is one of those words that doesn't sound like what it is.
a virtual diametric contradiction unto itself.
as per the additional mystery "R" in non-R words:
oil=earl
yikes! what's up with that?
i am a victim of the "'s" syndrome when it comes to the word "it" and the abbreviation "CD". i am working on it but its tough sometimes.
microsoft office has both a spell checker and a grammar checker built into it.
i might start using the evil suite more just to bone up.
Might as well throw in another one. Hate it when the word "their" is used when it should be he, or she, or he or she, or his, or her, or his or her. Not to mention there or they're. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I have tried to explain this to my mother-in-law several times, and she just doesn't get it.
I tell her "If you 'could care less', then you must care about it a little bit.".
She comes back with "No, I don't, I could care less about it!"
I couldn't care less. There, that isn't so hard to understand is it?! I care so little about it that I couldn't possible care any less! Makes sense to me.
I also can't stand seeing someone write "I was gunna do that too."
<strong>
From <a href="http://gusshultz.0me.com/gusbeatles.htm"; target="_blank">http://gusshultz.0me.com/gusbeatles.htm</a>;
kewl post glad thanks for taking the thyme
<strong>My biggest pet peeve is the use of the phrase "I could care less". I have tried to explain this to my mother-in-law several times, and she just doesn't get it. I tell her "If you 'could care less', then you must care about it a little bit.". She comes back with "No, I don't, I could care less about it!"
I couldn't care less. There, that isn't so hard to understand is it?! I care so little about it that I couldn't possible care any less! Makes sense to me.
I also can't stand seeing someone write "I was gunna do that too."
murbot,
man i know what you mean! "Couldn't" and "gonna", how hard is that..er, are they?
<strong>Amorya, that makes the mistake even more glaring then...Think about it...
In American English:
"What team is winning?"
"Manchester United is"
vs
British English:
"Manchester United are"
One other thing, in British English, would you say, "What team are winning?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'd say "which team is winning?", because you're talking about teams. but when talking about a particular team, I'd use the plural. Not that I'm an expert at British grammar
Now I think about it, I'd accept both is or are for a team. Probably all the American influence we get over here. If I was speaking, it'd be Apple have released a new G5, not Apple has released a new G5. But I wouldn't really notice if someone said the other.