Look at his second paragraph where he emphasizes that a word used correctly is incorrect. His point was to learn the use our mother tongues correctly.
It is ironic that he uses a correctly used term as an example of incorrect usage. The irony continues when you try to point out my lack of reading comprehension, but it is you who is missed the irony of someone preaching correct usage using incorrect examples.
How is it the defensive line attacks the QB, while the offensive line defends him?
If the major players entered the war in 1941, what does that make Germany? They started it! But I suppose it's reasonable since 'World' means the 48 contiguous states...
This is a funny thread, not just because of these little parochialisms, but because it's discussing the usage of non-standard English. Most of you are Americans, and don't speak English. And certainly don't write it...
Aloominum
Center
Color
7 passes defensed
math
It's 27 degrees and freezing (no, it's not. It's 27 degrees and splendid)
slud
Etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Eschew obfuscation.
lol. this anal dude definetly had something like that on his mind...“Get USED to my back; you’ll be seeing it a lot....while I look for the soap!"The OP is retarted homo. duh. like everyone who corrects spelling and grammer on this sight.
Vermont gal wrote:
I thought you meant Bi and Large, as in eats Vegan organic tofu, listens to Phish, smokes 4:20 and drives a grungy Outback.
Charlie and His Orchestra wrote:
Errrmmmm, for the PRINCIPAL players it was 41-45.
Of course you could always backdate the start to the plebiscite in the Sudetenland or the Saarland or maybe the occupation of the Ruhr or even the Versailles Conference...
I really, sincerely hope you're joking. World War II started in September, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. Britain declared war on Germany on September 3. There was no declaration of war involved when the Sudetenland was annexed.
If you're talking about major players, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Italy were all at war from 1939 to 1945 -- as were dozens of smaller countries across Asia, Oceana and Europe. That's why it was called a "world" war.
The ONLY major players who joined in 1941 were the U.S. and Soviet Union. If you're asking, "When did the U.S. participate in World War II?" then the answer is 1941 to 1945. But the war had already been going on for two years.
PLN:
All examples in my post were incorrect usage,
as seen in recent print.
Perhaps you feel that "Impact" as a verb is correct.
It has been used as such for about 20 years.
Of course nouns turn into verbs frequently in English, as in
"I water the grass". This can be handy.
But I object (cringe is more like it) to verbifying "impact" because,
as I wrote,
1. It evokes constipation.
2. We already have a word ready to serve.
I'm as anal as you are wrote:
Another one of my favorites:
"Where are you?"
NOT
"Where are you at?"
Instead of coming up with every possible phrase, why don't you just say DON'T END SENTENCES WITH A PREPOSITION, anal dingus.
...why don't you just say DON'T END SENTENCES WITH A PREPOSITION, anal dingus.
That's precisely the sort of overly grammatical nonsense up with which I shall not put.
"This is a funny thread, not just because of these little parochialisms, but because it's discussing the usage of non-standard English. Most of you are Americans, and don't speak English. And certainly don't write it..."
Believe me, I understand and accept your point. Perhaps I should have specified standard *American* English; it differs from British English in a number of ways.
However, *most* spellings are the same in the US and in the Commonwealth (please don't bother adducing the words that are spelled/spelt differently); yet the self-identified posters from the UK seem to spell just as badly, on average, as the Americans do. The situation is even sadder, perhaps, because the average British poster seems to be somewhat older than the average American, and a solid majority of the Brits posting here have finished their schooling--that is, in the future they're unlikely to improve their spelling much. (Which is not to say that the Americans necessarily will get better, either; but it's possible that in their remaining schooling the Americans will improve a bit.)
In any case, my intent was/is not to criticize any person's or country's use of English--the language belongs to those who speak and write it, and it changes--but just to let people know what the standard (the *American* standard, at least) is now.
hold the phone wrote:
If you're talking about major players, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Italy were all at war from 1939 to 1945 -- as were dozens of smaller countries across Asia, Oceana and Europe. That's why it was called a "world" war.
The ONLY major players who joined in 1941 were the U.S. and Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union entered the war in September 1939 when they invaded Eastern Poland in support of the Germans. Additionally, they invaded Finland in November 1939 in what became known as the Winter War. Don't forget that the Soviet Union was an Axis ally up until Germany invaded them in 1941.
KudzuRunner wrote:
I'm so glad to know that somebody else enjoys taking the role of Grammar Police. I thought I was the only one left. My wife knows that I often yell at the TV set, or radio, when some CBS or Fox announcer misuses the language.
OK, as far as announcers go, here's one that drives me nuts... and, yes, I know I'm being anal about this but I think it makes a difference.
In baseball, if a team is down by 2 runs with a guy on base, the announcer will usually say that the "tying run is at the plate" instead of "the *potential* tying run is at the plate." The only time the tying run is at the plate is if the runner safely crosses it after touching all the other bases.
For that matter, I guess it should be "the potential tying *runner* is at the plate." Oh, good... something else I can yell at the TV! :)
Your definately rite.
Sorry to revive a dead thread, but how could I have forgotten? In any case, later posts have reminded me:
Van CORTLANDT is a park in NYC and site of what is probably the most frequently run cross-country course in the United States.
CORTLAND is a small town in Upstate NY, home to a small college in the SUNY system.
Time for a refresher, it seems:
It's the *Wanamaker* Mile and the man from Oz is named *Mottram*.
Hey, you remind me of that asshole in the Cambridge bar in Good Will Hunting.
You missed the point. It's okay to end sentences with a preposition. In my example, a preposition is unnecessary.
Also, when asking a question, you should use a question mark, anal dingus.
Looks like it's time for a refresher. One of my initial caveats is worth repeating:
"[O]n a casual message board like this, anybody who criticizes a post’s *ideas* because of the post’s spelling and grammar needs to rethink his/her priorities."
I used to frequent another message board whose general tone was much more caustic than this board's, if you can believe that. Nevertheless, there was a general agreement on that board that anyone who responded to another's position by criticizing spelling or grammar or style was automatically the loser of the argument. That seems like a good policy. Yes, I make a lot of corrections of how people *express* their arguments; but that is not a correction of the arguments themselves, about which I'm usually neutral.
Yar wrote:
I could care less.
If you could care less I suggest you start doing so. There is way too much caring going on around here.
a while absence accelerate accomplish
accumulate acknowledge acquaintance acquire
across aficionado anoint apology
axle accordion barbecue beginning
broccoli business camouflage candidate
cantaloupe carburetor Caribbean cartilage
chauvinism chili chocolaty coliseum
colonel commemorate congratulations coolly
criticize Dalmatian deceive defendant
defiant desiccate desperate deterrence
development diorama disappear disappoint
dissipate difference ecstasy especially
excellent exercise explanation Fahrenheit
finally flabbergast flotation fourth
fulfill generally genius government
grammar gross guttural handkerchief
horrific hypocrisy imitate inadvertent
incidentally incredible ingenious irascible
irresistible knowledge labeled led
liaison lieutenant liquefy lose
lying magically marshmallow mischief
misogyny missile nauseous necessary
no one occasion occur/occurred octopus
official onomatopoeia parallel parliament
particular peninsula pharaoh physical
piece pigeon pistachio pleasant
plenitude preferable presumptuous proceed
propagate puerile pursue putrefy
raspberry receipt refrigerator religious
remembrance renowned ridiculous sacrilegious
salary sandal sandwich savvy
scissors seize sensible separate
septuagenarian sheriff shish kebab siege
similar special subpoena success
simile tableau tariff tomorrow
tongue too/to/two tragedy truly
ukulele usage vicious village
withhold you're/your • •
anudder PA'er wrote:
Why is it that when you play defense you defend the player on the other team but when you stick up for a buddy you are defending him, too? Is defending someone helpful or hurtful to them?
And do you have to put the question mark in the quotes? For example, who said something like "We are a united people separated by a common language?" or is it "...by a common language"? Note the placement of the question marks. Why should the question mark be in the quotes? The guy who originated the quote wasn't asking a question, was he? Isn't my question the bigger point than the quote, so the question mark should be outside the ending quotation mark.
In this case, the question mark as you correctly put it comes at the end of the sentence-outside the quotation marks.
NB: I didn't say outside of......
I love this whole thread.
I find American English confusing but that is only because we (Kenya) are part of the Commonwealth.
Here's one that appears to be commonly accepted, yet still drives me nuts: "Try and (verb)" instead of "try to (verb)." I will try to run a four-minute mile, not I will try and run a four-minute mile. You're using the infinitive, right, so the infinitive form with "to" is needed. When "and" is used instead it implies that you will not just try, but will succeed. The 'I' seems to conjugate both verbs in this sentence: "I will try and run a four-minute mile." So to me it reads as: "I will try and I will run a four-minute mile." Even Alan Webb can't be so sure.
But as I said, it appears to be so commonly accepted now that I suppose I'm just sticking my finger in a dike (not dyke) while the flood rises around my knees.