NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, misspelling. The art of failing to remember a short sequence of letters. Poll to come.

I don't know about misspelling but my favorite mis-speach (is that a word? is it spelled correctly) is when reporters are trying to say success and say sex instead, it is really funny, and I see it about 2 times a month like clockwork.

I do like how people misspell ridiculous.....

It's atheist, goddamn it.

The one I seem to screw up on the most is typing beleive instead of believe.

I don't know about misspelling but my favorite mis-speach (is that a word? is it spelled correctly) is when reporters are trying to say success and say sex instead, it is really funny, and I see it about 2 times a month like clockwork.

I do like how people misspell ridiculous.....

"Mis-speach" is not a word. Nor is "speach". "Speech" is though.

I'm dyslexic, so it really is all no never mind to me.

That said, I have to be careful about not using spell checking all the time. If I do, I get lazy and my spelling just degenerates.

The only way that you can be athiest is if you are athier than everyone else.:D

"Mis-speach" is not a word. Nor is "speach". "Speech" is though.
it was a joke, it would make sense that I would misspell something in a thred complaining about people who misspell things.

The only way that you can be athiest is if you are athier than everyone else.:D

So, we just have to make sure that "athi/athie" is defined as "extremely intelligent" and people will be more careful.

it was a joke, it would make sense that I would misspell something in a thred complaining about people who misspell things.

Consider my sides split.

Consider my sides split.
will do;)
I never claimed that it was a funny joke though........ in fact it was kinda a stupid joke, but if it is that funny to you then who am I to judge.

will do;)
I never claimed that it was a funny joke though........ in fact it was kinda a stupid joke, but if it is that funny to you then who am I to judge.

Actually, I was using irony. Not because I wanted to be caustic, but because I didn't have anything else to say. I suppose I should have simply put "fair enough", or an equivalent phrase.

Do their/there, you're/your, or two/too/to count as misspellings?

Do their/there, you're/your, or two/too/to count as misspellings?

Yes. Particularly annoying ones in my opinion.

Yes. Particularly annoying ones in my opinion.

Then those get my vote. I can more understand misspelling an 8 letter word than misspelling "their".

'Except' instead of 'accept' - it's funny because it can totally change the meaning of a sentence.

I have to be honest: I love to see people spell incorrectly, especially if they're from an english-speaking country. No offense, it's just that I like to think "Huh, that person has grown up with speaking and writing english, and I'm better. Yay."

I'm kinda rude in that way, but I need my small encouragements.

Actually, I was using irony. Not because I wanted to be caustic, but because I didn't have anything else to say. I suppose I should have simply put "fair enough", or an equivalent phrase.
actually you were bieng sarcastic and I was being facetious. I hope you didn't think I was mad at you, I have yet to find the correct facetious smiley.

irony is the difference between what you expect to happen and what actually happens I doubt that irony is the word you were meaning.;)

Then those get my vote. I can more understand misspelling an 8 letter word than misspelling "their".
I think that some people don't know that their/there are two distinct words. And then some others make fun of the those ones. No one really misspells so simple words.

'Except' instead of 'accept' - it's funny because it can totally change the meaning of a sentence.

There's another combination of words like that that infuriates me when people misspell. Unfortunately, I'm completely drawing a blank on what the words are.

"Grammer," easily. I think we all get a good laugh from those helpful folks online, who educate us with gems like (when losing an argument) "at least I have good grammer, stupid."

i have fought oh so many times to not kill someone when reading athiest.

thanks for giving me an opportunity to voice this.

and yes i can spell very well. but no i don't, usually, use that ability. yes, i'm aware of that. no, i don't care.

*Votes for rouge*

"I'm a rouge state!"
"A red state, huh? So that makes you...what, a commie?"
"No! We're rouges not communists!!!1lol"
"But...huh?"

actually you were bieng sarcastic and I was being facetious. I hope you didn't think I was mad at you, I have yet to find the correct facetious smiley.

irony is the difference between what you expect to happen and what actually happens I doubt that irony is the word you were meaning.;)

That's an ironic situation. An ironic statement is one which contrasts with reality. Ironic statements are often sarcastic, but not always, such as "lovely weather" when it is actually bad weather. This is not sarcastic, as it is not meant offensively.

I thought you might have been being facetious, I just wanted to be sure. Good to hear that you weren't mad. A cool head is a good thing.

*Votes for rouge*

"I'm a rouge state!"
"A red state, huh? So that makes you...what, a commie?"
"No! We're rouges not communists!!!1lol"
"But...huh?"
A Rouge state is a country that has been completely dominated by the make-up industry, to the point where the government is merely an extension of the marketing arm for a major Make-Up manufacturer.

Of those you've listed, the one that annoys me the most is "rouge" used for "rogue". What is a "rouge state" supposed to be? A communist state? A state with a dictator who wears rouge?

Others include they're/their/there, accept/except, where/were/we're, it's/its, and many others. I put it down to kids in English-speaking countries not learning any grammar. In France, we're taught grammar from a young age. When I was in Australia, I taught French for beginners, and I had a student in his late thirties who had no concept of grammar whatsoever; he had no idea what a subject or a verb were!


[Edit:] Oh, and "could care less". What the heck? Anyone with even the slightest sense of grammatical logic would realise that "could care less" is an absurdity.

I have to be honest: I love to see people spell incorrectly, especially if they're from an english-speaking country. No offense, it's just that I like to think "Huh, that person has grown up with speaking and writing english, and I'm better. Yay."

I'm kinda rude in that way, but I need my small encouragements.

I've noticed that people who learn English as a second language are often better than native speakers. Presumably because they're actually making an effort to learn.

My favorite is "floccinausinihilipilification" for "floccinaucinihilipilification".

A Rouge state is a country that has been completely dominated by the make-up industry, to the point where the government is merely an extension of the marketing arm for a major Make-Up manufacturer.
An exact description of the Khmer Rouges.

I've noticed that people who learn English as a second language are often better than native speakers. Presumably because they're actually making an effort to learn.
Presumably because we rule.

My favorite is "floccinausinihilipilification" for "floccinaucinihilipilification".

I often write the incorrect "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis" when I mean "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis".

That's an ironic situation. An ironic statement is one which contrasts with reality. Ironic statements are often sarcastic, but not always, such as "lovely weather" when it is actually bad weather. This is not sarcastic, as it is not meant offensively.\
Being the official NS Sarcasm Master, I'd like to state that sarcasm does not have the connotation of offense. What you are referring to is mordancy, a.k.a. bitter or corrosive sarcasm.

An exact description of the Khmer Rouges.
Ah yes. 2 million people killed... with makeup. What a terrible way to go, choking on a lipstick.

Being the official NS Sarcasm Master, I'd like to state that sarcasm does not have the connotation of offense. What you are referring to is mordancy, a.k.a. bitter or corrosive sarcasm.

Under sarcasm:

"# A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
# A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule."

dictionary.com

I often write the incorrect "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis" when I mean "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis".

I used to spell it as pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis. I've also had the pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokionosis variant as well. Ah, the good ol' days of ignorant 4th/5th graders.

I often write the incorrect "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis" when I mean "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis".
I did that once...

Of course, most annoying is "hippopotomonstrasesquipedaliaphobia" for "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobia". :rolleyes: I can't believe people don't know how to spell that word!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450497
Afghanastan...

Under sarcasm:

"# A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
# A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule."

dictionary.com
You call that offensive? ;)

Thin-skinned, some of the people around here...

I often write the incorrect "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis" when I mean "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis".
And I "Lipsmackinthirstquenchinacetastinmotivatingoodbuzzincooltalkinhighwalkinfastlivinevergivincoolfizzin Pespi" when I mean "Lipsmackinthirstquenchinacetastinmotivatingoodbuzzincooltalkinhighwalkinfastlivinevergivincoolfizzin Pepsi". Silly me.

For some reason the substitution of "calvary" for "cavalry" has always irritated the crap outta me! "Calvary" was the hill where Jesus was suppose to have been crucified. "Cavalry" is mounted soldiery, whether on horseback or mechanized vehicles.

Another pet peeve of mine is failure to understand the difference between "their" "they're" and "there."

"Their" is the possessive form of "they," it denotes something which belongs to them, as in "this is their game."

"There" denotes place: "Put the TV over there."

"They're" is a contraction which states "they are," and is descriptive of some action or quality of "they," as in "they're very aggressive today."

Another pet peeve of mine is failure to understand the difference between "their" "they're" and "there."

"Their" is the possessive form of "they," it denotes something which belongs to them, as in "this is their game."

"There" denotes place: "Put the TV over there."

"They're" is a contraction which states "they are," and is descriptive of some action or quality of "they," as in "they're very aggressive today."


Preaching to the choir here, yo.

For some reason the substitution of "calvary" for "cavalry" has always irritated the crap outta me! "Calvary" was the hill where Jesus was suppose to have been crucified. "Cavalry" is mounted soldiery, whether on horseback or mechanized vehicles.
Imagine that in a war: The crusaders come with cavalry... The muslims come with Calvary... The crusaders are scared sh*tless, 'cause it should be impossible to move that entire hill. War over.

Preaching to the choir here, yo.
Preeching too the quire, you mean.

Preeching too the quire, you mean.

Ma appollogeese

Ma appollogeese
Tha'ts ok.

You call that offensive? ;)

Thin-skinned, some of the people around here...

Surely "to wound" and "to be offensive" are the same?

Preaching to the choir here, yo.
Perhaps as far as you're concerned, but I've seen all of those misused right here on General many times. :rolleyes:

Imagine that in a war: The crusaders come with cavalry... The muslims come with Calvary... The crusaders are scared sh*tless, 'cause it should be impossible to move that entire hill. War over.
Heh! I'm not sure how the translations would go in either direction, but surely the potential for misunderstanding increases as the inverse cube of the accuracy of translation? :p

PWND (owned)

PWND (owned)

When people say "pwned", they are usually doing it on purpose, rather than trying and failing to write "owned".

PWND (owned)

That's become staple geek talk, really. 633|<5 1|\| 73|-| h1z0|_|53!

When people say "pwned", they are usually doing it on purpose, rather than trying and failing to write "owned".
It still counts as a misspelling.

That's become staple geek talk, really. 633|<5 1|\| 73|-| h1z0|_|53!
I do not understand leet.

I do not understand leet.

It's not important anyway.

Surely "to wound" and "to be offensive" are the same?
Not if you're a sadist like me. :p

Surely "to wound" and "to be offensive" are the same?
"To wound" would be personalized so that the sarcasm, had it been a weapon, would have drawn blood.

"To be offensive" does not imply drawing blood, only offending.

"To wound" would be personalized so that the sarcasm, had it been a weapon, would have drawn blood.

"To be offensive" does not imply drawing blood, only offending.

Well, I meant "to wound" originally, I just couldnt think of the appropriate word.

That's an ironic situation. An ironic statement is one which contrasts with reality. Ironic statements are often sarcastic, but not always, such as "lovely weather" when it is actually bad weather. This is not sarcastic, as it is not meant offensively.

I thought you might have been being facetious, I just wanted to be sure. Good to hear that you weren't mad. A cool head is a good thing.
yes, it is a great thing, few people realize how helpful it is.:)

and you are right about the ironic statement.

the conversation was fun though.;)

the one that bugs me most lately is neseccary. a couple people make the mistake on a regular basis. i can only assume that they are dislexic or were never taught any phonetics since it screams "WRONG!!"

the one that bugs me most lately is neseccary. a couple people make the mistake on a regular basis. i can only assume that they are dislexic or were never taught any phonetics since it screams "WRONG!!"

It screams "this person is a waste of the earth's resources"... well, it probably says it with a raised voice, rather than actually shouting it.

the one that bugs me most lately is neseccary. a couple people make the mistake on a regular basis. i can only assume that they are dislexic or were never taught any phonetics since it screams "WRONG!!"
Isn't it "a couple of people"?

Isn't it "a couple of people"?
Hehehe.

This thread is full of irony.

Some misspellings I've seen (incorrect forms are preceded by an asterisk, the international linguistics symbol for an error):

architectural *arcitachaetetural
nucleolus *ucleuless
palladian *palyon
gressorial *grecorial
agnostic *agonistic
collapse *colapice

...

How should "ridiculous" be spelled? Like that, or "ridicilous", or "ridicilus", or even "ridicolus?"

I see all of these, and as English is only my second language I am always quite unsure and hesitate a long time before using a word. I have, however, used "ridiculous" pretty often. These different forms that I ran into all the time are now confusing me, as I see all of them beeing used approximately as often as the others.

How should it be?

irony is the difference between what you expect to happen and what actually happens

Err...no it isn't.

Err...no it isn't.
in literary terms it is.
Irony- A contrast or an incongruity between what is stated and what is really meant, or between what is expected to happen and what actually does happen. Two kinds of irony are: 1) verbal irony, in which a writer or speaker says one thing and means something entirely different; and 2) dramatic irony in which a reader or audience member perceives something that a character in the story does not

How should "ridiculous" be spelled? Like that, or "ridicilous", or "ridicilus", or even "ridicolus?"

I see all of these, and as English is only my second language I am always quite unsure and hesitate a long time before using a word. I have, however, used "ridiculous" pretty often. These different forms that I ran into all the time are now confusing me, as I see all of them beeing used approximately as often as the others.

How should it be?

"Ridiculous" is correct.

in literary terms it is.

But that's not what you said....

irony is the difference between what you expect to happen and what actually happens.

Which is different from...

Irony- A contrast or an incongruity between what is stated and what is really meant, or between what is expected to happen and what actually does happen. Two kinds of irony are: 1) verbal irony, in which a writer or speaker says one thing and means something entirely different; and 2) dramatic irony in which a reader or audience member perceives something that a character in the story does not

You see. You said it's a difference between what you EXPECT TO HAPPEN and what ACTUALLY HAPPENS. Whereas it a literary mechanism where there is a difference between the apparent meaning and the actual meaning.

But that's not what you said....



Which is different from...



You see. You said it's a difference between what you EXPECT TO HAPPEN and what ACTUALLY HAPPENS. Whereas it a literary mechanism where there is a difference between the apparent meaning and the actual meaning.
this is really off topic but here goes.

IRONY - A term that suggests some sort of discrepancy between appearance and reality. Although irony is a broad term that can be applied to events both trivial and tragic, it depends on the ability of the reader to recognize contradictions and incongruities. Irony usually takes three forms:

Verbal Irony is speech in which what is said is the opposite to what is meant.

Dramatic Irony is a circumstance in which characters reveal their inability to understand their own situation. Dramatic irony is most effective when characters make fateful choices based on information the reader realizes is incorrect.

Situational Irony is a situation that demonstrates an incongruity between what the reader expects or presumes to be appropriate and what actually occurs. from here (http://www.pfmb.uni-mb.si/eng/dept/eng/text/glos2.htm)
I was at best not as specific as I should have been and at worst I didn't post a definition befitting the actual word. I was correct in what I said, and will not argue semantics as this is a thred about misspellings and not misuse of words.

thank you and have a lovely evening.

The next person that pluralizes a word by adding " 's" gets smacked.

this is a thred about misspellings

tee-hee :)

can we post misused phrases as well? because then i'd love to add "to beg the question". now i know that's a rather specific thing and i don't expect anyone to be into logical fallacies enough to know it, but if you don't know it don't use it..

and I would like to add 'uber' as misspelled and -pronounced word :p

Isn't it "a couple of people"?
no

The next person that pluralizes a word by adding " 's" gets smacked.

Yes, that's another one.

*shudders*


no

Yes, it is. It's just that Americans tend to go around dropping things, so the absence of "of" has come to be viewed as correct in the US. But it flies in the face of established grammatical rules. A quantified uncountable noun should be preceded by a quantifying noun and "of".

Would a person who doesn't believe in correct spelling be a grammer athiest?

Would a person who doesn't believe in correct spelling be a grammer athiest?

No. They'd just be ignorant. :p

Yes, that's another one.

*shudders*



Yes, it is. It's just that Americans tend to go around dropping things, so the absence of "of" has come to be viewed as correct in the US. But it flies in the face of established grammatical rules. A quantified uncountable noun should be preceded by a quantifying noun and "of".
im an american

necessary (prolly spelt it wrong lol)

im an american
Yes, but:
But it flies in the face of established grammatical rules.
Grammar is the same (otherwise we wouldn't be having this thread).
Zing.

Related topic: "do'nt". It's unbelievable, but I've seen it.

Yes, but:

Grammar is the same (otherwise we wouldn't be having this thread).
Zing.

Related topic: "do'nt". It's unbelievable, but I've seen it.
it does fly in the face of accepted formal writing. but it is also accepted american colloquial usage.

im an american and this is an informal setting.

i dont use apostrophes or capital letters either. *shrug*

Would a person who doesn't believe in correct spelling be a grammer athiest?

no, thats ridiccolos. their not neseccarily grammer athiests but ortoghraphy athiests.

it does fly in the face of accepted formal writing. but it is also accepted american colloquial usage.
Is it? Does it really count as American English? I think it is just a mistake (not that I am a prosecutor - as you said, this is informal). You wouldn't say "a number things" or "a meeting workers" - the fact that it is used for just one (or just a few) cases points to a subjective, random usage, so it should not qualify as dialectical or colloquial.

"meeting (of) workers" is not in the same grammatical category of "number (of) things" or "couple (of) things". we were talking about quantified nouns there.
[/nit-pick]

anyhow, just discovered a few new gems:

my favorite: "Technecly,..."

the second i'm not even sure on- but i *think* it's supposed to read "collapse"..: colapice

Is it? Does it really count as American English? I think it is just a mistake (not that I am a prosecutor - as you said, this is informal). You wouldn't say "a number things" or "a meeting workers" - the fact that it is used for just one (or just a few) cases points to a subjective, random usage, so it should not qualify as dialectical or colloquial.
it is american colloquial according to the OED. not for formal use.

"meeting (of) workers" is not in the same grammatical category of "number (of) things" or "couple (of) things". we were talking about quantified nouns there.
[/nit-pick]
Yes, but the principle is the same. Why would it be any different for quantified nouns? Is it by some analogy with (let's say) "ten things"?

What really gives me trouble in English is the Oxford comma. We use it very rarely in my language, and I was taught in school that it doesn't make sense (still, for my language). So I disregard it in English.

as much as i hate to say it, ashmoria's right, my oxford advanced learner's dictionary shows "couple " without of to be a correct determiner in american english. it doesn't even say it's informal.

why itis different? well, it's two different grammar rules there! the case we were talking is about determiners, and whether they have too be followed by an "of" or not.
the "workers" example did not fit into this category. when saying "a meeting of workers", "meeting" is not a determiner but a noun itself, and it is not there to show how the following noun (workers" is to be used.

p.s. what is an "oxford" comma? i enver knew there were different "kinds" of commas..:confused:

no, thats ridiccolos. their not neseccarily grammer athiests but ortoghraphy athiests.
:D

as much as i hate to say it, ashmoria's right, my oxford advanced learner's dictionary shows "couple " without of to be a correct determiner in american english. it doesn't even say it's informal.

why itis different? well, it's two different grammar rules there! the case we were talking is about determiners, and whether they have too be followed by an "of" or not.
the "workers" example did not fit into this category. when saying "a meeting of workers", "meeting" is not a determiner but a noun itself, and it is not there to show how the following noun (workers" is to be used.
Oh, ok.
p.s. what is an "oxford" comma? i enver knew there were different "kinds" of commas...
It's not too long since I found it existed. Oxford recommends that a sentence like "I only believe in my parents, Marx and Lenin" should have an extra comma - "I only believe in my parents, Marx, and Lenin". I can see a point to it, but I can't bring myself to do it.

Except and Accept.

"Do you except Visa?"

"I am the acception to the rule."

It's not too long since I found it existed. Oxford recommends that a sentence like "I only believe in my parents, Marx and Lenin" should have an extra comma - "I only believe in my parents, Marx, and Lenin". I can see a point to it, but I can't bring myself to do it.
I hope if you ever write/type that example sentence elsewhere you do include the oxford comma, as otherwise you're saying that your parents are Marx and Lenin.


Unless, of course, your parents are Marx and Lenin...

People misspelling in Jamesian English can be annoying. 'Twas and 'tis, people, not t'was and t'is. Gah.

My all time most hated misspelling is quite a common one where people mistakenly spell the word Britain as 'E-n-g-l-a-n-d'. :mad:

I hope if you ever write/type that example sentence elsewhere you do include the oxford comma, as otherwise you're saying that your parents are Marx and Lenin.


Unless, of course, your parents are Marx and Lenin...
Oh, come on. I knew this much.
It was a paradigm - that's why I said that I can see a point to it.
I guess that, according to Oxford rules, it should apply to all sentences with mention of several elements in succesion (wether the confusion does occur or not). In that sense.
The point is that my language does not have it ever (regardless of potential absurdities). We are almost never to use a comma before our version of "and" - if we do, it's in virtually poetic context (as a license).

Oh, come on. I knew this much.
It was a paradigm - that's why I said that I can see a point to it.
I guess that, according to Oxford rules, it should apply to all sentences with mention of several elements in succesion (wether the confusion does occur or not). In that sense.
The point is that my language does not have it ever (regardless of potential absurdities). We are almost never to use a comma before our version of "and" - if we do, it's in virtually poetic context (as a license).
Sorry, I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence.
I meant that if you're going to apply it in one sentence you should apply it to all sentences.

One that got me confused was "waste", meaning "waist".

The most annoying one is "then" for "than". They're not the same word at all, and this misspelling totally confuses you for several seconds, because you're expecting the word "then" to couple the parts of the sentence before it with the sentence after it. Like, "It's better dead then red" has this structure: "It's better when you are: dead, after which red". Or for comparation, "It's higher then the trees".

"It's higher then the trees".
That is so cool. It takes the form or "relevant" observations on life ("life is short, and then you die"), but with a Lewis Carroll twist on it. Lovely.

My all time most hated misspelling is quite a common one where people mistakenly spell the word Britain as 'E-n-g-l-a-n-d'. :mad:

Or vice versa.

"Do you except Visa?"


Hehe... I'd love to see someone reply "No, we accept them" - or, even better: "Yes, sorry."

Except and Accept.

"Do you except Visa?"

"I am the acception to the rule."

Can we also have affect and effect as well?

Most americanisms, but only when used by people over here in the UK, thru <arrrgh> and color, and any -izm -ization etc. it does annoy me when trying to read a book that is written in American as opposed to English.

an' a to'al ha'red for people tha' use apos'raphes in t'plural or t'ey forge' t'won'erful use t'deno'e own'rship (you might need t'migrate to Lancs. or Yorks. for tha' one, soun's al'reet t'me.)

How can you not list "teh"(the)? What about affect(often incorrectly used where it should be effect and vice-versa)? Remember: affect=cause. Both have A's.

Most americanisms, but only when used by people over here in the UK, thru <arrrgh> and color, and any -izm -ization etc. it does annoy me when trying to read a book that is written in American as opposed to English.
Oh man, I wasn't going to say anything, but since the subject has been raised...
Not that I dislike it, but it does weird me out when I see British spellings of words here in America. The title of this thread, for instance, made me want to reply that my favorite misspelling is "favourite," even though I know that it is correct.

this is really off topic but here goes.

from here (http://www.pfmb.uni-mb.si/eng/dept/eng/text/glos2.htm)
I was at best not as specific as I should have been and at worst I didn't post a definition befitting the actual word. I was correct in what I said, and will not argue semantics as this is a thred about misspellings and not misuse of words.

thank you and have a lovely evening.

Hmmm...yes, probably best not to get bogged down in semantics.

Olara']Oh man, I wasn't going to say anything, but since the subject has been raised...
Not that I dislike it, but it does weird me out when I see British spellings of words here in America. The title of this thread, for instance, made me want to reply that my favorite misspelling is "favourite," even though I know that it is correct.

And not in America. I'm English, and typing from the UK, and the forum is hosted in the UK.

I misspell "like" many times as liek. grrrr:mad:

I'm not sure if someone's posted it already, but I detest the missuse of "alternate".

"Alternate" is a synonym for "alternating"; it is not a synonym for "alternative".

Alternative. You are an alternative for the team. It is an alternative dimension (unless the dimensions go back and forth, one after the other). This has gotten so bad that the dictionaries will be converted before very long (they partially are already). When they are completely overrun, I will no longer be able to complain, for the inaccuracy would have consumed the orthodox, and our language will take another "evolutionary" step. :(

It screams "this person is a waste of the earth's resources"... well, it probably says it with a raised voice, rather than actually shouting it.

Uber Awesome, for that remark you have hereby been awarded Passivocalia's Metaphoric Medallion, for the month of October.

It's not an actual medallion, you understand.

Almost the entire vocabulary butchered and used by the simple folk of the U.S.A.

as much as i hate to say it, ashmoria's right, my oxford advanced learner's dictionary shows "couple " without of to be a correct determiner in american english. it doesn't even say it's informal.

why itis different? well, it's two different grammar rules there! the case we were talking is about determiners, and whether they have too be followed by an "of" or not.
the "workers" example did not fit into this category. when saying "a meeting of workers", "meeting" is not a determiner but a noun itself, and it is not there to show how the following noun (workers" is to be used.

The University of the Voice, in Passivocalia, does not recognize faulty English even if it is lauded by authorities. Suppose I were to say "A meeting of workers collapsed into anarchy and swarmed into the streets, burning and pillaging as they went."

First of all, it would be ridiculous to say "A meeting workers collapsed into anarchy and swarmed into the streets, burning and pillaging as they went" even though meeting is the determiner in this context. What, precisely, is a "meeting worker"? It conjures the image of someone who works on meetings, which is not the same as a worker who attends a meeting.

Secondly, "burning and pillaging as they went" is incorrect, as the subject of the sentence was meeting, which is singular. If it is not the actual meeting that is swarming, burning, and pillaging, then a new subject needs to be introduced: "A meeting of workers collapsed into anarchy, and the workers swarmed into the streets, burning and pillaging as they went" would be a more correct sentence. Dividing the sentences would avoid even more confusion.

Any authority who tells you otherwise is mistaken, regardless of how well its intentions may be. ;)

Almost the entire vocabulary butchered and used by the simple folk of the U.S.A.

Pronounce the following proper nouns for me, if you would:

Thames
Warwick
Edinburgh
Leicester
Gloucester

I blame the British. :D

Colour! Colour for fucks sake! It's spelt colour!

It's not a misspelling, but it is along the same lines - I despise it when people pronounce the word nuclear as NOOK-yuh-ler (George W, anyone?). It is, in my mind, one of the first signs of unintelligence.