NationStates Jolt Archive

Please. I know that a lot of you don't care about the language, but a little consideration for those of us that do would be appreciated.

Let me explain for those that really do not know.

There - 2 basic uses. To refer to a place. - 'over there in England'
---------------------To refer to an undefined subject. "There are ghosts."

Their - The possesive of them. - "It is their country"

They're - A contraction of 'they are' - They're fighting communism. (Sorry Dhomme)

Please try to use the right word for the meaning you want.

I know I am not the only person here that has pet linguistic hates. What bugs you?

I can't say, because every time I do, I get called a spelling Nazi.

It's and its. GET IT RIGHT!

Please. I know that a lot of you don't care about the language, but a little consideration for those of us that do would be appreciated.

Let me explain for those that really do not know.

There - 2 basic uses. To refer to a place. - 'over there in England'
---------------------To refer to an undefined subject. "There are ghosts."

Their - The possesive of them. - "It is their country"

They're - A contraction of 'they are' - They're fighting communism. (Sorry Dhomme)

Please try to use the right word for the meaning you want.

I know I am not the only person here that has pet linguistic hates. What bugs you?
meh, grammar bores me.

This is the internet, not english class.

<snipped>

What bugs you?
People in general. They're annoying little fucks. Always flapping their lips with vapid small talk. I wish I had an isloated mansion in the middle of the woods so I could go there and escape them.

meh, grammar bores me.

This is not grammar. I am not concerned if you dangled a participle or not. This is plain English vocabulary. But then you are the one that hasn't even reached nine yet aren't you?

This is the internet, not english class.
oh come on, now, be nice.

or would you rather I do this?

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

This is the internet, not english class.
The problem behind this theory, of course, is that on most internet forums, if you prove unable and/or unwilling to use the language correctly, people will be less likely to take you seriously (or, in fact, pay attention to you at all). One would think that something like that is important, at least to the posters on this particular forum....

This is the internet, not english class.
If people could speak English it wouldn't have to be.


I can't say, because every time I do, I get called a spelling Nazi.

It's and its. GET IT RIGHT!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/grammarnazi.gif
Be proud.

to, too and two

I am going to the store to buy two gallons of milk and some eggs too.

geez, people get it together.

also, your/you're

I hope you're happy, you just lost your computer time for today.

People in general. They're annoying little fucks. Always flapping their lips with vapid small talk. I wish I had an isloated mansion in the middle of the woods so I could go there and escape them.
A mansion in the woods? A shack was good enough for the Uni-bomber...what the hell makes you so special?

This is not grammar. I am not concerned if you dangled a participle or not. This is plain English vocabulary. But then you are the one that hasn't even reached nine yet aren't you?
Actually, my ninth birthday was yesterday.

I can't stand when people use the wrong form of "too/to."

Too: emphasis, or same as "also" (i.e. You're a bitch too...you're too idiotic for words.)

To: directional, action (We're going to jail to slip razors to our boyfriends.)

oh come on, now, be nice.

or would you rather I do this?

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Be nice.

Or would you rather I slit your throat and then proceed to remove your organs one by one? Because, right now, I would love to do it.

Actually, my ninth birthday was yesterday.
Happy Birthday!
*snorts*

to, too and two

I am going to the store to buy two gallons of milk and some eggs too.

geez, people get it together.

also, your/you're

I hope you're happy, you just lost your computer time for today.

Oooh! Do affect/effect next!

A mansion in the woods? A shack was good enough for the Uni-bomber...what the hell makes you so special?
It's my wish, so I'm wishing for a mansion. I like empty rooms and hallways around me. It's nice and creepy.

Be nice.

Or would you rather I slit your throat and then proceed to remove your organs one by one? Because, right now, I would love to do it.

Aren't most of the organs connected? Not to mention all those blood vessels tied up in there...

Please. I know that a lot of you don't care about the language, but a little consideration for those of us that do would be appreciated.

Let me explain for those that really do not know.

There - 2 basic uses. To refer to a place. - 'over there in England'
---------------------To refer to an undefined subject. "There are ghosts."

Their - The possesive of them. - "It is their country"

They're - A contraction of 'they are' - They're fighting communism. (Sorry Dhomme)

Please try to use the right word for the meaning you want.

I know I am not the only person here that has pet linguistic hates. What bugs you?

Persons vs. People

The correct plural of person is persons.

A people is a group of persons with similar characteristics. The plural of people is peoples.

I know this is old-fashioned, but I hate it when persons use people as the plural of person

I ALSO hate it when people put ' where it doesn't belong.

Apostrophes used incorrectly to form plurals are known as greengrocers' apostrophes (also: greengrocer's apostrophes, grocers' apostrophes or grocer's apostrophes, sometimes humorously greengrocers apostrophe's).

The term was coined in the United Kingdom where such mistakes are common in the signs and advertisements of greengrocers, e.g. “Apple's and orange's for sale, 50% off”. In recent years, however, this mis-use has become increasingly frequent in other forms of advertisement, particularly those of small businesses, e.g. from Hackney Market in London, UK “Christma's Card's”.

The practice comes from a widespread ignorance of the use of the apostrophe and the identical sound of the plural and possessive forms of most nouns.

Oooh! Do affect/effect next!
That one is a little more difficult, because half the time I can't remember the "rule" so I avoid using them at all.

The effect of this statement is to explain how it affects me when people misuse words that while sounding alike, do not mean the same thing.


one that also annoys me is accept/except because my aunt misuses them a lot and even has signs up in my grandfather's store that have the misuse in 4 foot tall bolded letters "WE DO NOT EXCEPT CHECKS"
:headbang:

Aren't most of the organs connected? Not to mention all those blood vessels tied up in there...

Not connected enough to come out in a big chain when being pulled from the neck hole. Now the INTESTINES would all come out that way.

Be nice.

Or would you rather I slit your throat and then proceed to remove your organs one by one? Because, right now, I would love to do it.
wow, what crawled up your ass today?

Persons vs. People

The correct plural of person is persons.

A people is a group of persons with similar characteristics. The plural of people is peoples.

I know this is old-fashioned, but I hate it when persons use people as the plural of person

Okay, that's hardcore.

I ALSO hate it when people put ' where it doesn't belong.

Where does it belong?

wow, what crawled up your ass today?

You didn't answer the question.

Actually, my ninth birthday was yesterday.

So you are a nine year old liar then:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10715777&postcount=170

I thought of another one: fewer vs. less.

Less is for singular nouns, fewer for plural nouns.

I have less bread, fewer breads.

This bugs me, all this faulty English, like:

Your used for both your and you're.

Its for both its and it's.

And the 'their' you mentioned.

....................
I can kinda dig l337!, but that's kinda different.

Persons vs. People

The correct plural of person is persons.

A people is a group of persons with similar characteristics. The plural of people is peoples.

I know this is old-fashioned, but I hate it when persons use people as the plural of person

The problem is that any group of persons that one would refer to have, of necessity, some similar charracteristics. Hence we generally use persons only when they are persons unknown.

The problem is that any group of persons that one would refer to have, of necessity, some similar charracteristics. Hence we generally use persons only when they are persons unknown.

Sorry. A defining characteristic: the Celtic people. In a classroom, though, classmates have few defining similarities. Not all of them are Christians or Germans or whatever; therefore they are persons: they are together but not necessarily thought of as being a single unit.

When people use 'of' in place of a contraction of 'have'.

Example: 'Should of' in place of 'Should've'.

Sorry. A defining characteristic: the Celtic people. In a classroom, though, classmates have few defining similarities. Not all of them are Christians or Germans or whatever; therefore they are persons: they are together but not necessarily thought of as being a single unit.

They're all students. They're all in class. They're all (probably) listening to the instructor. They're people.

They're all students. They're all in class. They're all (probably) listening to the instructor. They're people.

Are they acting as one group? Then yes, they are a people. However, we ought to use the singular conjugation of the verb instead of the plural.

The people of the class reads the text book.

Not

The people of the class read the text book.

But this comes to convention. It is conventional to use persons rather than people. People is usually used for large masses of persons, not a class of 24.

Sorry. A defining characteristic: the Celtic people. In a classroom, though, classmates have few defining similarities. Not all of them are Christians or Germans or whatever; therefore they are persons: they are together but not necessarily thought of as being a single unit.

Who is doing the defining? Persons (or people) do not have singular defining characteristics. They are multiply defined. Thus if you take any group of persons you can call them people simply by defining them as that group to which you are referring.

Additionally the definition of 'people' is multiple in itself; one of these being:
n 1: (plural) any group of human beings (men or women or children) collectively;
(Dictionary.com)

or from the OED:
5. persons in general (people do not like rudeness).

Are they acting as one group? Then yes, they are a people. However, we ought to use the singular conjugation of the verb instead of the plural.

The people of the class reads the text book.

Not

The people of the class read the text book.

But this comes to convention. It is conventional to use persons rather than people. People is usually used for large masses of persons, not a class of 24.

Sorry but the convention no longer holds. It is conventional now to use people. In the same way as it is conventional now to understand cute to mean lovable rather than skillful. Conventions change. Additionally people is a plural noun so it is used as the thired person plural: the people are happy not the people is happy.

Sorry but the convention no longer holds. It is conventional now to use people. In the same way as it is conventional now to understand cute to mean lovable rather than skillful. Conventions change. Additionally people is a plural noun so it is used as the thired person plural: the people are happy not the people is happy.

Yes, I said my preference is old-fashioned. I hold to the convention that was used when persons was still common. But I also use the older uses of shall and will, and I use ought rather than should to express obligation. I guess I ought to have lived in the early 1900's.

Yes, I said my preference is old-fashioned. I hold to the convention that was used when persons was still common. But I also use the older uses of shall and will, and I use ought rather than should to express obligation. I guess I ought to have lived in the early 1900's.

Fair enough, you may use persons if you so wish, it is not wrong to do so.

However you are factually wrong about the use of persons rather than people being old fashioned.
Usage Note: [snip] Some grammarians have insisted that people is a collective noun that should not be used as a substitute for persons when referring to a specific number of individuals. By this thinking, it is correct to say Six persons were arrested, not Six people were arrested. But people has always been used in such contexts, and almost no one makes the distinction anymore. [snip]

emphasis added




So it appears that people has been in our language for a long time. The OED gives it as derived from Middle English from Anglo-French, originating in the latin populus. Not exactly a modern invention.

Not a common one, but I still get annoyed with misuse of 'myriad'.

There are myriad ways of telling people they're too ignorant when it comes to their grammar and the effect it has on others. Except for certain ways in which it affects me, I accept an argument between two persons on this forum may not have the highest standards of grammar, but you would have thought they'd at least make a basic effort.

Yep, it's convoluted. Do I care? No.

And proud! (http://img115.exs.cx/img115/1141/grammar-nazi.jpg)

They're - A contraction of 'they are' - They're fighting to destroy capitalism.

Much better :)

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/347/grammerpolice0fj.png
The Grammar Police applaud this amazing thread, and wish it to be seen by all the people of NS General!

Thousands of brave men died so that you aren't speaking German today.

Mangling English is the same as spitting on the graves of the war-dead from the first and second world wars

Ending sentences with prepositions really gets my goat. However, I find myself doing this more and more as of late...

But it really is quite annoying. It would seem nowadays that the basic rules of English are being forgotten. Alas, such is the mark of a changing language.

Ending sentences with prepositions really gets my goat. However, I find myself doing this more and more as of late...

But it really is quite annoying. It would seem nowadays that the basic rules of English are being forgotten. Alas, such is the mark of a changing language.

The preposition thing is mainly used as a punchline.

Thousands of brave men died so that you aren't speaking German today.

Mangling English is the same as spitting on the graves of the war-dead from the first and second world wars

So? They're dead. It's not like they care.

This strikes me so close to home. I graduated with an English degree and I'm an impeccable speller. It's an enormous pet peeve when people use the wrong similar sounding word. Furthermore I work at a job where I have to transcribe written surveys and I can't correct errors if its an actual word. Also the constant exposure is causing me to occassionally make those same mistakes myself. Very aggravating. My job makes me stupid.

This strikes me so close to home. I graduated with an English degree and I'm an impeccable speller.
Way to go for the modesty there, yo.... :rolleyes:

What the fuck can you do with a BA in English, anyway? I've wondered since I heard that song....

The Grammar Police applaud this amazing thread, and wish it to be seen by all the people of NS General!
If only we could get this thread stickied ;)

What bugs me? Semicolons. I still don't know how to use the damn things; so I tend to use commas instead.

Simonist']Way to go for the modesty there, yo.... :rolleyes:

What the fuck can you do with a BA in English, anyway? I've wondered since I heard that song....

That is from a great musical, to be cetain.

Also the constant exposure is causing me to occassionally make those same mistakes myself.

Would this be a bad time to point out the fact that occasionally only has one "s"?


Which reminds me... another thing that bothers me is when people misuse the term "ironic".

If only we could get this thread stickied ;)

Agreed. :)

If only we could get this thread stickied ;)

People should come up with something else to complain about then spelling.

People should come up with something else to complain about then spelling.
You funny!

You funny!

Yep. Utracia funny. :)

Semicolons are for seperating two comments (within one sentence) that could stand independently as sentences. This is the proper use for a semicolum; as you can see either of the portions of this sentence could stand as independent sentences.

Porta me!

Simonist']Way to go for the modesty there, yo.... :rolleyes:

What the fuck can you do with a BA in English, anyway? I've wondered since I heard that song....

With a BA in English you can pretty much only teach people how to write English............................................................................................. ............................................................on NationStates.

0mgsz!!!!!1111 like dis' is daintrranet not skuel geez!!!!!!!!

0mgsz!!!!!1111 like dis' is daintrranet not skuel geez!!!!!!!!

You spelled 3 words right. Congratulations!

0mgsz!!!!!1111 like dis' is daintrranet not skuel geez!!!!!!!!

Yes, and?

The Internet is a communications system. It is a tool that makes it possible for you, in whatever part of the world you are, to send me, in the opposite corner, your message. Now it helps if you can construct that message in a way that makes it intelligable to the maximum number of people. Of course, you don't have to care about that, but then it would be you that is failing to communicate.

Yes, and?

The Internet is a communications system. It is a tool that makes it possible for you, in whatever part of the world you are, to send me, in the opposite corner, your message. Now it helps if you can construct that message in a way that makes it intelligable to the maximum number of people. Of course, you don't have to care about that, but then it would be you that is failing to communicate.
This is the point I wish more internet users would understand.

It took me YEARS to even get it through certain close male friends' heads *ahem*he'll read this eventually*ahem* that U, R, UR, etc are not, in fact, words.

Personally, I don't even really care about minor spelling mistakes, because in my haste I often make them as well. As long as I get the point across, or I understand others' points, that's fine by me.

Meh,(<--not a word) I tried my best, it could have been worse.

I have always found MSN, 1337 language, and the typing of 13 year olds amusing, if not grammatically correct in any way.

I sympathize with your dislike of bad language.
Grammar is something that I will always have problems with.

Meh,(<--not a word) I tried my best, it could have been worse.

I have always found MSN, 1337 language, and the typing of 13 year olds amusing, if not grammatically correct in any way.

I sympathize with your dislike of bad language.
Grammar is something that I will always have problems with.


Beyond "not a word," 'meh' is an animal noise that no self respecting human being who knows the difference between himself and his dog or his horse makes.

Ideally, the dialects of written english developed on the internet have an internal logic to their grammar, the way black non-standard english does.

Hey perhaps I could send my research paper when completed to one of these spelling/grammer nitpickers to comb through it for errors! They could assuage their perfectionist desires and help me get a better grade! :)

I tend to be rather precise in my use of English, if for no other reason just to try to prevent myopic criticisms of my political viewpoints, by those who'd rather heap ridicule over me for a creative misspelling than to address the core issue I might bring to the discussion. Because then they can always go "Aha! I told you he was stupid!"

Not that being excruciatingly precise prevents that........

Because then, they just bash you with a Dictionary.com or a handy thesaurus reference.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

It bothers me too, but the one thing that really makes me cringe is when people mean "won" and write "one", or vice versa.

I tend to be rather precise in my use of English, if for no other reason just to try to prevent myopic criticisms of my political viewpoints, by those who'd rather heap ridicule over me for a creative misspelling than to address the core issue I might bring to the discussion. Because then they can always go "Aha! I told you he was stupid!"

Not that being excruciatingly precise prevents that........

Because then, they just bash you with a Dictionary.com or a handy thesaurus reference.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
I know exactly what you mean.
Post using precise language and people will infer something else and then tell you that you meant that something else and are only nit-picking because they have picked up a flaw in that something else - in other words people are happy to tell you that you meant something other than you posted and are only claiming that you meant what you did post because the thing you never posted is flawed....

When it comes to interpretation you are equally dammed. If you interpet literally it's nitpicking, if you interpret what was clearly meant (before pointing out the problems with the poster's rational) you get a 'where does it actually say that in my post' reply.....

Worst of all is the person who does these things in combination. They tell you what you mean and that you cannot possibly mean what you actually said, then expect you to interpet their words to mean exactly what they say they mean, whether or not that is what they actually said, and whether or not that is a reasonable and appropriate interpretation given the post context and given their previous linguistic usage.

People should come up with something else to complain about then spelling.

than spelling.

oh come on, now, be nice.

or would you rather I do this?

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
You do that anyways, everytime i see a post by you it has that fuckign emoticon in it. :mad:

I just read on the Oxford Dictionary web site that "y'all" is becoming accepted as the proper plural of you. Language evolves. The KJ Bible was written in common language. You can look for ideas or spelling. Spelling has only been important for the last 200 years or so. Before that people would spell their own name differently in the same paper. Web spelling will undoubtably be the "proper" spelling of the future.

I just read on the Oxford Dictionary web site that "y'all" is becoming accepted as the proper plural of you. Language evolves. The KJ Bible was written in common language. You can look for ideas or spelling. Spelling has only been important for the last 200 years or so. Before that people would spell their own name differently in the same paper. Web spelling will undoubtably be the "proper" spelling of the future.
Maybe so, but today if you spell "great" with a number on your college english paper or in a news article, you will look like a moron.

Maybe so, but today if you spell "great" with a number on your college english paper or in a news article, you will look like a moron.
Only if it turns out the professor actually reads said paper. Mine never seem to. I even slip in several sentences in the middle of a larger paragraph, usually on page two or three, that CLEARLY has nothing to do with the paper in question. It's only ever been caught once.

I just read on the Oxford Dictionary web site that "y'all" is becoming accepted as the proper plural of you.

Since when can you say "you all"? My profs would fume at the sight.

Simonist']Only if it turns out the professor actually reads said paper. Mine never seem to. I even slip in several sentences in the middle of a larger paragraph, usually on page two or three, that CLEARLY has nothing to do with the paper in question. It's only ever been caught once.
Unfortunately, my teachers read my essays ... although I'm too much of a good student to try to slip something past. :)

Your/You're - my biggest pet peeve.
Incorrect apostrophe use is up there to.

It hurts my brain when people write things like "their are to chair's." or "your gonna loose that." for "There are two chairs." "You're going to lose that."

On a side note, when is "gonna" going to become an official word? It is used often enough.

Would this be a bad time to point out the fact that occasionally only has one "s"?


Which reminds me... another thing that bothers me is when people misuse the term "ironic".

Now we just need Vellia to make a mistake :).

Beyond "not a word," 'meh' is an animal noise that no self respecting human being who knows the difference between himself and his dog or his horse makes.
.


hey!!! *MOO*.. i happen to *BARK* resent that remark *snort*


i guess i don't respect myself since i talk back to my cats :-P
*points emphatically* THEY STARTED IT!!!!! *cats look on with bored glances, wondering if the human really has lost it*

hey!!! *MOO*.. i happen to *BARK* resent that remark *snort*


i guess i don't respect myself since i talk back to my cats :-P
*points emphatically* THEY STARTED IT!!!!! *cats look on with bored glances, wondering if the human really has lost it*
You're not the only one.

On topic, pretty much all of the above bug me. I taught myself to read from watching Sesame Street before I even started school, and until we got a computer with decent game and internet capabilities, I was almost never seen without a book in hand. As such, I've developed a keen sense of grammar and vocabulary, although I will admit that browsing NS and a few LiveJournal communities has put a couple of dents in it lately. Still, there's a difference between a typo and a clear ignorance of your language, and the latter REALLY annoys me.

And one I don't see mentioned much is incorrect comma use. I know commas are sometimes left up to the author, but so many times it's misused or not used at all where it should be. Punctuation in general, I guess, is much ignored.

Theirra is the Old Norse root for Their

Thaer is the Old English root for There

Most of the homonyms and synonyms that are the most confusing in the English language come from the fusion of Old Norse and Old English (and some even from the Dutch just to make it really interesting). I personally blame the Norse not just for pillaging Europe but for causing most of the confusion with regards to spelling and the general mess that has evolved into the English language. Hey it’s about time they got what’s coming to them for this one. :)

Still, there's a difference between a typo and a clear ignorance of your language, and the latter REALLY annoys me.Well, not everyone can help being clearly ignorant about their language. My language is a minority language hardly taught at school. I'd just be guessing at how to spell it >_<

And of course, if you're just talking about english, in general, on the web, many people aren't native english speakers.

Yes, but those for whom English is a second or third language tend to understand it better. The usually want to learn, so they apply themselves. Most of the problem lies in native English speakers who are simply ignorant of the language. I've rarely met someone whose native language was not English who was not either very good at speaking/typing English, or at the very least apologetic about their English because they weren't native speakers. Guess I should have clarified that. ^^;

Your/You're - my biggest pet peeve.
Incorrect apostrophe use is up there to.

It hurts my brain when people write things like "their are to chair's." or "your gonna loose that." for "There are two chairs." "You're going to lose that."

On a side note, when is "gonna" going to become an official word? It is used often enough.

Don't worry, it's gonna be soon.

My pet peeve is the spelling of hypocrisy and hypocrite. Often, in NS general, we get hypocracy and hippocrit. Or something.

Hypocracy is the rule of the needle.

The lose/loose thing is worse because it throws me off to such an extent that I have trouble understanding what is said.

And a preposition is a horrible thing to end a sentence with.:)

I’ve volunteered at an ESL program and had a long-term girlfriend who was studying linguistics. I understand that as a second language, English isn’t very easy to make sense of compared to the much more logically structured languages out there (German for instance). In my own Nation States Region, I have a number of thoughtful posters on our offsite forum who aren’t strong in English, because it’s not their first language. Some of them use online translators for their posts; others painstakingly translate word for word; and others just try their best.

Considering my complete lack of fluency in any other language, I feel that I should be more than tolerant of people struggling with English as a second language and sometimes even feel embarrassed for not having taken the time to learn other languages. I once even knew a man who was fluent in 8 languages, although living in Canada was weakening his strength in some of them.

There are also a lot of people learning to spell in school with English as their first language. Nobody’s perfect. I misspell words just like everybody else. Sometimes I’m tired or distracted by shiny things when I post and make a mistake. I personally look at a person’s post by the content and not by their spelling. Unless of course they talk in L33T speak in which case it’s intentional butchery of communication. Then there's those hooked on phonics people...

Hypocracy is the rule of the needle.I think that as neologism, it'd be "rule of the hypocrites". i.e. most political systems.. :rolleyes:

Hypo doesn't originally mean needle anyway.. Hypo (as needle) is short for hypodermic needle (i.e. a needle you stick under the skin).
Hypo roughly means below/under/less-than (it's the opposite of hyper). Hypocrital is 'less than critical' (with regards to self). I suppose more accurately it ought to be autohypocritical or maybe hypoautocritical, to incorporate the 'self'. But nevermind that..

Oh and what about principle and principal; they misused that in the Tate. I'm sure there are plenty more things by which people can pretend to be annoyed so as to try and appear more intelligent.

Oh and what about principle and principal; they misused that in the Tate. I'm sure there are plenty more things by which people can pretend to be annoyed so as to try and appear more intelligent.
Come on, no baiting. Let there be one thread in which people who prefer proper spelling and grammar can come together without flamebaiting and/or trolling. Just this one.

Don't worry, it's gonna be soon.

My pet peeve is the spelling of hypocrisy and hypocrite. Often, in NS general, we get hypocracy and hippocrit. Or something.

Hypocracy is the rule of the needle.

The lose/loose thing is worse because it throws me off to such an extent that I have trouble understanding what is said.

And a preposition is a horrible thing to end a sentence with.:)

You should never end a sentence with a preposition, but sometimes you get into a situtuations it's difficult to get out of. :p

You should never end a sentence with a preposition, but sometimes you get into a situtuations it's difficult to get out of. :p
It's fine to end a sentence with a preposition. If you don't agree, I'll use this crowbar to beat your head with.

There - 2 basic uses. To refer to a place. - 'over there in England'
---------------------To refer to an undefined subject. "There are ghosts."

Their - The possesive of them. - "It is their country"

They're - A contraction of 'they are' - They're fighting communism. (Sorry Dhomme)

See, I totally share your hate for that, as well as most everybody else's hate for most every other spelling mistake.

But to my horror I've started to make them myself.

I was never able to understand how anybody could confuse their, they're, and, especially, there. I mean - hello?

But lately, I've been finding my posts in this forum riddled with things like that. I hate it. All the practice my English gets from posting here has made me a lot more secure in actively using English (as opposed to just passively reading or hearing it, especially the former of which I'm basically doing all the time) yet at the same time it completely screwed up my ability to use correct spelling.

I can't count the times I've read over my posts and had to go back to edit a "their" into a "they're", and the other day it was even a *gasp* "there" instead of a "they're". The horror! :eek:

I have no idea why that is and it's driving me crazy. It's like my English gets both better and worse at the same time, like my brain operates solely on a "Eh, but they sound alike *shrug*" basis anymore. Gah. :(

As someone who learned english as a foreign laguage it bothers me when people post without any form and full of errors. In german i might be able to understand it quite easily and just shake head in disgust, in english it takes quite a lot of time and quite often it turns out that time was ill-invested because the content was faulty as well, too.
That being said, i cant be bothered with apostrophes and knowingly refuse to use them unless its a job-related document.

As someone who learned english as a foreign laguage it bothers me when people post without any form and full of errors. In german i might be able to understand it quite easily and just shake head in disgust, in english it takes quite a lot of time and quite often it turns out that time was ill-invested because the content was faulty as well, too.
That being said, i cant be bothered with apostrophes and knowingly refuse to use them unless its a job-related document.Argh! Can't resist...

You didn't capitalize your "I"s...

Argh! Can't resist...

You didn't capitalize your "I"s...Shouldn't languages have a capital letter as well? (Like all names)

Shouldn't languages have a capital letter as well? (Like all names)True. Not in German though...

Argh! Can't resist...

You didn't capitalize your "I"s...
That is thanks to my humbleness and modesty. :p

You do that anyways, everytime i see a post by you it has that fuckign emoticon in it. :mad:
Ha, I got banned for that for like, 4 days. I had to create a new nation so I could post on this forum.

I you ever see any posts by Dude111, you know who it is.

Happy Birthday!
*snorts*
Thank You!! Wanna see me birthday cake? Here it is:

http://rire.org/images/phots/2004/happy-birthday-dick.jpg (http://rire.org/images/photos/2004/happy-birthday-dick.jpg)

You didn't answer the question.
You didn't answer mine.

True. Not in German though...

I thought you capitalised all nouns in German? :S

I thought you capitalised all nouns in German? :SYup. But not adjectives.

In german i might be able to understand it quite easily
Yup. But not adjectives.

In that sentence German is a noun(?) surely.

In that sentence German is a noun(?) surely.I wasn't answering Jester though ;)
I was responding to another post that pointed that out. Language adjectives aren't capitalized in German, while they are capitalized in English.

In that sentence German is a noun(?) surely.


ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

Please. I know that a lot of you don't care about the language, but a little consideration for those of us that do would be appreciated.

Let me explain for those that really do not know.

There - 2 basic uses. To refer to a place. - 'over there in England'
---------------------To refer to an undefined subject. "There are ghosts."

Their - The possesive of them. - "It is their country"

They're - A contraction of 'they are' - They're fighting communism. (Sorry Dhomme)

Please try to use the right word for the meaning you want.

I know I am not the only person here that has pet linguistic hates. What bugs you?
I can't say, because every time I do, I get called a spelling Nazi.

It's and its. GET IT RIGHT!
I hate bad-spellers...if I were a teacher and you couldn't spell, you'd fail.

Spelling Nazi...I almost like that title...

<general idiocy>

What?

What?


Originally Posted by ConscribedComradeship
In that sentence German is a noun(?) surely.

ROFLMAO at that.

Snip. What bugs you?

What bugs me?

Let's see here:



1) Can not -- I see this at work all day, sometimes from people who are above me in the company hierarchy. I'd like to laugh at the irony, but I'd rather just be angry that usage morons make more money. Oh, BTW, it's cannot.

2) Apostrophes in non-possessive plural nouns that (also) aren't abbreviated (IE, there is no reason to include the apostrophe).

Examples: The boy's are cool. I love the 80's (should be '80s or simply 80s). Saturday's are fine with me.

Unless you want to show ownership (Tom's dog is cool. The waitresses' shoes are in the corner.) or use it in a contraction (literally, used to take the place of a letter or letters in a word or phrase: I can't tell you!), apostrophes are unnecessary. I suppose they may also be used to set apart quotes inside of quotes, but that's not really a grammar issue.

3) Recurring vs. Reoccurring -- Reoccurring is not a word. Recurring is the proper representation of the meaning.


That's enough for now.

In that sentence German is a noun(?) surely.

ROFLMAO at that.

I don't see what's funny. I put the (?) so as to indicate my newly induced uncertainty with the statement, then added surely, but I did not bother to reposition the question mark. I see nothing amusing.

I don't see what's funny. I put the (?) as to my newly induced uncertainty with the statement, then added surely, but I did not bother to reposition the question mark. I see nothing amusing.


That does not surprise me.
Nor would it surprise Rotovia.

*uncorks bottle of champers*

Congratulations, Comrade.
You have just become the first person in this millenium to succesfully adhominem himself.

*raises glass*

Cheers!

That does not surprise me.
Nor would it surprise Rotovia.

*uncorks bottle of champers*

Congratulations, Comrade.
You have just become the first person in this millenium to succesfully adhominem himself.

*raises glass*

Cheers!

So, what is funny, is that I fail to find it funny? I can see how this is funny.

Although I don't know why Rotovia has reason to not be surprised by this.

Then/than.



If you make more mistakes than a three year old while typing, then I will kick you in the teeth.

simple, no?