Here's a place for the grammar, spelling and word choice (my personal peeve) nazis to gather and educate the unwashed masses. Let me begin the lessons:
your = belongs to you. "Get your head out of your ass."
you're = you are. "You're stupid."
resign = to quit, to leave one's job or position. "Mike Tice resigned from the Vikings."
= to accept as inevitable. "We are simply resigned to the fact that Andy Reid will never call another running play."
re-sign = to sign again. "Reno Mahe re-signed with the Eagles."
could have = "I could have won 30 dollars if I bet against the spread"
could've = contraction of could have "I could've won as well, but I never bet against the Birds"
could of = "I had taken all I could of T.O.'s bullshtein"
I could'ov takin these hints, butt Im re-signed to the fact that your the gramer and speelin Nazi.
Y'all is excellent English.
People who don't know the difference between your and you're should be kicked in the neck.
compliment - An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation
complement - a word or phrase used to complete a grammatical construction 2: a complete number or quantity; "a full complement" 3: number needed to make up whole force; "a full complement of workers" [syn: full complement] 4: something added to complete or make perfect; "a fine wine is a perfect complement to the dinner" 5: one of a series of enzymes in the blood serum that are part of the immune response 6: either of two parts that mutually complete each other v : make complete or perfect; supply what is wanting or form the complement to; "I need some pepper to complement the sweet touch in the soup"
There's no such word as "Prolly." It's probably, idiot.
I'll play. This one bugs me.
principal - main player, dude in charge, owner, foremost person/thing. "Little John kicked the school principal in the nuts." "Please address this letter to the principals of our five most important customers, Brandi."
principle - a value, a tenet, a guiding idea. "One of the mosty easily idenifiable differences between liberal and conservative principles can be described simply: liberals choose diplomacy before military action." "One of the most central principles of linear logic is the law of non-contradiction."
Also, spelling "Ridiculous" as "Rediculous" is ridiculous.
rifargulous.
Here is one I stand by, even though common usage by ignorant fools is eroding the distinction:
If you feel sick to your stomach, you "feel nauseated", or you "are nauseated."
If you are disgusting to behold, causing others to feel ill themselves, you "are nauseous."
So don't tell me you're "nauseous" after eating that egg salad sandwich. I'll puke on you.
Quote from: rjs246 on November 03, 2005, 10:45:36 AM
People who don't know the difference between your and you're should be kicked in the neck.
As well as people that don't know the difference between "lose" and "loose." I've seen it plenty of times on this board.
Example: The Eagles may very well loose on Sunday. Incorrect!!
I sure hope i don't loose a lot of money on that Eagles game. Incorrect!
I don't think the Eagles will lose this week. Correct!!
If you don't know the difference between loose (Chuggie's ass) and lose (what the Texans do every week) then you need to go back to fargin school!
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 11:27:43 AM
So don't tell me you're "nauseous" after eating that egg salad sandwich. I'll puke on you.
Most people are nauseous in general, whether it be before or after egg salad.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 11:27:43 AMSo don't tell me you're "nauseous" after eating that egg salad sandwich. I'll puke on you.
That one bugs the hell out of me, too. But I do get a private chuckle when somebody says it.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 11:27:43 AM
Here is one I stand by, even though common usage by ignorant fools is eroding the distinction:
If you feel sick to your stomach, you "feel nauseated", or you "are nauseated."
If you are disgusting to behold, causing others to feel ill themselves, you "are nauseous."
So don't tell me you're "nauseous" after eating that egg salad sandwich. I'll puke on you.
You learn something new every day...from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=nauseous):
QuoteUsage Note: Traditional critics have insisted that nauseous is properly used only to mean "causing nausea" and that it is incorrect to use it to mean "affected with nausea," as in Roller coasters make me nauseous. In this example, nauseated is preferred by 72 percent of the Usage Panel. Curiously, though, 88 percent of the Panelists prefer using nauseating in the sentence The children looked a little green from too many candy apples and nauseating (not nauseous) rides. Since there is a lot of evidence to show that nauseous is widely used to mean "feeling sick," it appears that people use nauseous mainly in the sense in which it is considered incorrect. In its "correct" sense it is being supplanted by nauseating.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 11:27:43 AM
Here is one I stand by, even though common usage by ignorant fools is eroding the distinction:
If you feel sick to your stomach, you "feel nauseated", or you "are nauseated."
If you are disgusting to behold, causing others to feel ill themselves, you "are nauseous."
So don't tell me you're "nauseous" after eating that egg salad sandwich. I'll puke on you.
i'll take Mr Merriam and Mr Webster's word (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nauseous) for it, thank you very much.
which by the way state that both are correct.
Irregardless :boom, NucUlar :boom :boom, yous/youns/yins :boom :boom :boom
for the record, is 'alls' a word? it's ok for phreak to use it, after all he did a stint in texas, but for regular philly folks is it ok?
All's is a contraction (all is). And the proper Southern expression is Yalls (as in you all).
how about the following statement:
alls i know is that cat is cool.
is that proper?
Quote from: Wingspan on November 03, 2005, 12:00:51 PMwhich by the way state that both are correct.
Both are considered correct only because the brutes have forced the change by persistent mis-use. That's the way language goes. It's a constant low-grade war for the minds of humanity between those who would retain distininctions and those who would discard them. The former are snobs to the latter, who are--as a matter of demonstrable fact--ignorant and uneducated.
Uhh...no.
"Irregardless" is a fine example of what I'm saying. It is a word, make no mistake about it. But it is one that had become archaic. But recently, the word has been re-vitalized by uneducated people who are trying to say "regardless," but are too ignorant to say it correctly. In a pathetic attempt to sound like they know what they're saying, they add "Ir-" to the word, and are unknowingly correct.
People suck. Here's proof:
Everyday I hear someone say "let's be pro-active." Pro means active. It's a redundancy, and a lousy faddish term that should be avoided.
People say or write "remaining balance" all the time, or even "remaining balance left." Duh. Drives me nuts. I usually tell whoever said that they should say "remaining balance still left," just to really beat the idea in.
Another fave: "Well my personal opinion is..." No need for the word "personal" there. Your opinion is already yours; you don't have to make is special to you by calling it personal.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 12:42:06 PM
Another fave: "Well my personal opinion is..." No need for the word "personal" there. Your opinion is already yours; you don't have to make is special to you by calling it personal.
Hmm...but there may be a use for such a distinction in this world of ignorance. Since few people actually think for themselves, it is not always obvious...
"In my opinion (that came from Bush), gay marriage should be illegal."
"In my opinion (that came from Eskin), Andy Reid is an infallable god"
"In my personal opinion, I have no clue what I'm talking about"
If we could just get them to reference the source when they aren't citing their personal opinion...
Quote from: Cerevant on November 03, 2005, 12:51:22 PM
"In my personal opinion, I have no clue what I'm talking about"
seems to me that that is not a opinion, rather a fact.
Quote from: Cerevant on November 03, 2005, 10:41:47 AM
Here's a place for the grammar, spelling and word choice (my personal peeve) Nazis to gather and educate the unwashed masses. Let me begin the lessons:
your = belongs to you. "Get your head out of your ass."
you're = you are. "You're stupid."
resign = to quit, to leave one's job or position. "Mike Tice resigned from the Vikings."
= to accept as inevitable. "We are simply resigned to the fact that Andy Reid will never call another running play."
re-sign = to sign again. "Reno Mahe re-signed with the Eagles."
could have = "I could have won 30 dollars if I bet against the spread"
could've = contraction of could have "I could've won as well, but I never bet against the Birds"
could of = "I had taken all I could of T.O.'s bullshtein"
You might as well be quoting one of my post. By the way, Nazis is a noun, and should be capitalized, butthead.
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 01:16:57 PM
By the way, Nazis is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, butthead.
Thanks :P
Really though, I'm not that dumb that I don't know I could use some ejumukashon in spelling and grammar. I have to pay a lawyer to proof read my contracts when they deviate from the normal one he wrote for me way back when, to make shore they are worded correctly and I don't get ripped off if I ever have to go to court.
So have at it, maybe I'll learn something...........maybe.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 12:42:06 PM
"Irregardless" is a fine example of what I'm saying. It is a word, make no mistake about it. But it is one that had become archaic. But recently, the word has been re-vitalized by uneducated people who are trying to say "regardless," but are too ignorant to say it correctly. In a pathetic attempt to sound like they know what they're saying, they add "Ir-" to the word, and are unknowingly correct.
People suck. Here's proof:
Everyday I hear someone say "let's be pro-active." Pro means active. It's a redundancy, and a lousy faddish term that should be avoided.
People say or write "remaining balance" all the time, or even "remaining balance left." Duh. Drives me nuts. I usually tell whoever said that they should say "remaining balance still left," just to really beat the idea in.
Another fave: "Well my personal opinion is..." No need for the word "personal" there. Your opinion is already yours; you don't have to make is special to you by calling it personal.
If your so good at grammar then why is your post edited?
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 01:34:30 PMIf your so good at grammar then why is your post edited?
Oh, snap!!
Because I'm good enough to see the errors I make and correct them. Now go back to the beginning of this thread and read again, particularly the parts about the difference between "your" and "you're."
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 01:34:30 PMIf your so good at grammar then why is your post edited?
Oh, snap!!
Because I'm good enough to see the errors I make and correct them. Now go back to the beginning of this thread and read again, particularly the parts about the difference between "your" and "you're."
But
your not good enough to see them before you post.
I hope it drives you nutty, if you can get anymore nuttier than you are.
(http://www.triv.org.uk/~danny/images/grammar.jpg)
(http://foostew.com/uhoh/grammarnazi-sm.jpg)
(http://img115.exs.cx/img115/1141/grammar-nazi.jpg)
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 01:56:37 PMBut your not good enough to see them before you post.
Ah, wilfull ignorance. My favorite flavor.
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 01:57:38 PMI hope it drives you nutty, if you can get anymore nuttier than you are.
Go ahead and sound stupid, it doesn't phase me around here. I expect it from you.
From the Urban Dictionary:
noun (pl. -s)
1. A icehole like Dio who uses proper grammar at all times, esp. online in emails, chatrooms, instant messages and webboard posts; a proponent of grammatical correctness. Often one who spells correctly as well.
2. a – A crackhead like Dio who believes proper grammar (and spelling) should be used by everyone whenever possible. b – One who attempts to persuade or force others to use proper grammar and spelling. c – One who uses proper grammar and spelling to subtly mock or deride those who do not; an exhibitor of grammatical superiority. d – One who advocates linguistic clarity; an opponent of 1337-speak. e – One who corrects others' grammar; the spelling police.
proper noun
3. A nickname, pseudonym or handle for a well-known grammar nazi (defs. 1 and 2) within a particular social circle, used to show either great respect or great contempt for his or her abilities.
verb (transitive)
4. To correct the grammar of (a person's speech, a piece of writing, etc.); to edit for grammar and spelling; to proofread.1. A grammar nazi knows the difference between "there," "their" and "they're."
2. Teh grammar nazis haev invadd r formu.
3. Grammar Nazi, help me with my English homework please.
4. He totally grammar nazied my article, replacing pronouns and rewriting clauses.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 02:09:21 PM
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 01:56:37 PMBut your not good enough to see them before you post.
Ah, wilful ignorance. My favorite flavor.
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 01:57:38 PMI hope it drives you nutty, if you can get anymore nuttier than you are.
Go ahead and sound stupid, it doesn't phase me around here. I expect it from you.
Your not practicing what you preach very well, are you? :-D
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 02:09:21 PM
Ah, wilful ignorance. My favorite flavor.
neither one of those are proper sentences. it should say...
"Ah, wil
lful ignorance
is my favorite flavor."
dio is now infuriating to himself.
Touche, touche. Never said I was perfect. Just better. Suck it.
Better than what? Better than someone who knows he has bad grammar and could care less? OK, let me get this straight, you are..
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 01:42:10 PM
good enough to see the errors I make and correct them
...right before you botch both spelling and grammar in two three word sentences. :-D
You contradict yourself, I'd say your a Grammar Nazi wannbe'. You have to be at least smart enough to know you don't know everything.
*sigh*
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 02:57:12 PM
*sigh*
...and you still continue to spell penis wrong. ::) This is getting out of hand.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 02:57:12 PM
*sigh*
Speechless?? Now that is hard to believe.
OK thou Great Infuriating to Himself Grammar Nazi Bitch, I have a few actual questions if this thread was actually started to enlighten some us unlearned, and not just to thrust out your chest like your some kind of Harvard graduate and piss on those you consider yourself better than.
The usage of
we're and
were. Like
We're going to Dio's house and smoke crack.Or,
Were we're you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?Or,
We're not were you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 03:26:00 PM
....I have a few actual questions if this thread was actually started to enlighten some us unlearned, and not just to thrust out your chest like your some kind of Harvard graduate and piss on those you consider yourself better than.
The usage of we're and were. Like We're going to Dio's house and smoke crack.
Or, Were we're you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?
Or, We're not were you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
You are joking, right? Either you're joking, or you're illiterate.
"We're" is a contraction of "we are."
"Were" is a verb, the past tense of "be."
"Where" is an adverb, which means "in what place."
Your sentences above corrected:
"We're going to Dio's house
to smoke crack." or "We're going to Dio's house and
we're going to smoke crack."
"
Where were you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?"
We're not
where you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
:-D :-D
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 03:26:00 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 02:57:12 PM
*sigh*
Speechless?? Now that is hard to believe.
OK thou Great Infuriating to Himself Grammar Nazi Bitch, I have a few actual questions if this thread was actually started to enlighten some us unlearned, and not just to thrust out your chest like your some kind of Harvard graduate and piss on those you consider yourself better than.
The usage of we're and were. Like We're going to Dio's house and smoke crack.
Or, Were we're you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?
Or, We're not were you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
You are sofa king we todd did.
I don't get it.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 03:26:00 PM
....I have a few actual questions if this thread was actually started to enlighten some us unlearned, and not just to thrust out your chest like your some kind of Harvard graduate and piss on those you consider yourself better than.
The usage of we're and were. Like We're going to Dio's house and smoke crack.
Or, Were we're you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?
Or, We're not were you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
You are joking, right? Either you're joking, or you're illiterate.
"We're" is a contraction of "we are."
"Were" is a verb, the past tense of "be."
"Where" is an adverb, which means "in what place."
Your sentences above corrected:
"We're going to Dio's house to smoke crack." or "We're going to Dio's house and we're going to smoke crack."
"Where were you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?"
We're not where you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
More likely, if anyone cared venture into Dio's hovel Dio would more likely be smoking dick. Therefore; "We're going to Dio's shack, where we were thinking of getting our dick's smoked" would be correct.
Atomic wedgies for all!
Lay off "irregardless." I earned a B.S. (Bachelor Of Science, but the initials are much more fitting) from an accredited university, and love this word for no other reason that using it seems to piss people right the farg off.
farging grammarians can suck my kraut kock.
Quote from: stillupfront on November 03, 2005, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 03:26:00 PM
....I have a few actual questions if this thread was actually started to enlighten some us unlearned, and not just to thrust out your chest like your some kind of Harvard graduate and piss on those you consider yourself better than.
The usage of we're and were. Like We're going to Dio's house and smoke crack.
Or, Were we're you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?
Or, We're not were you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
You are joking, right? Either you're joking, or you're illiterate.
"We're" is a contraction of "we are."
"Were" is a verb, the past tense of "be."
"Where" is an adverb, which means "in what place."
Your sentences above corrected:
"We're going to Dio's house to smoke crack." or "We're going to Dio's house and we're going to smoke crack."
"Where were you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?"
We're not where you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
More likely, if anyone cared venture into Dio's hovel Dio would more likely be smoking meatcicle. Therefore; "We're going to Dio's shack, where we were thinking of getting our meatcicle's smoked" would be correct.
There shouldn't be an apostrophe in that last meatcicle.
There are an astounding amount of people that are totaly oblivious to the fact that they're completly wrong and seem to have no idea when they should use the word their.
There, thier, they're, now. Can't we all just get along?
Can someone please tell me how grammer nazi thing got started? Nazi=bad, correct grammer=good. I think the grammer nazi is the one that uses incorrect grammer, knows it and doesn't care. We all read everyone's post and we know if someone made a one time mistake or if they cosistantly make the same error. If I make a mistake and am corrected, I have learned. I am now a smarter Eagle fan. What a good thing.
Of course, I never make mistakes. I thought I did once, but I was wrong.
I'm going to go back to ponding my dashboard now.
I have to tell ya, 3x...but the word is "grammar".
stop trying Sus, it's pointless
Well, thank you very much. I shall try to improve my grammar. (damn it, I knew I should have spell checked!)
Quote from: MadMarchHare on November 03, 2005, 06:13:56 PM
Quote from: stillupfront on November 03, 2005, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2005, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: shorebird on November 03, 2005, 03:26:00 PM
....I have a few actual questions if this thread was actually started to enlighten some us unlearned, and not just to thrust out your chest like your some kind of Harvard graduate and piss on those you consider yourself better than.
The usage of we're and were. Like We're going to Dio's house and smoke crack.
Or, Were we're you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?
Or, We're not were you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
You are joking, right? Either you're joking, or you're illiterate.
"We're" is a contraction of "we are."
"Were" is a verb, the past tense of "be."
"Where" is an adverb, which means "in what place."
Your sentences above corrected:
"We're going to Dio's house to smoke crack." or "We're going to Dio's house and we're going to smoke crack."
"Where were you when we were at Dio's house smoking crack?"
We're not where you thought we were when you thought we were at Dio's house smoking crack.
More likely, if anyone cared venture into Dio's hovel Dio would more likely be smoking meatcicle. Therefore; "We're going to Dio's shack, where we were thinking of getting our meatcicle's smoked" would be correct.
There shouldn't be an apostrophe in that last meatcicle.
Thats another one. The apostrophe.
Keep in mind I never had any use for any of this crap until I started out on the internet, but it's
gotten' pretty interesting.
The apostrophe indicates something plural, correct? Like....
Dio's bong is huge! or
Thats Dios bong. The second sentence should have an apostrophe? What designates in a sentence that an apostrophe goes on the end of a word?
I type words like
gonna', wanna', gotten' and
'cause, mainly 'cause thats the way I talk, and I don't necessarily try to sound like somethin' I'm not. Novels I read quote the characters in them the same way to add realism to the book. If they were all quoted in perfect English, it would make for some boring Novels.
Quote from: shorebird on November 05, 2005, 10:06:11 AMThe apostrophe indicates something plural, correct?
No.
Quote from: shorebird on November 05, 2005, 10:06:11 AM Dio's bong is huge! or Thats Dios bong.
The second sentence should have an apostrophe?
It should have two. The first sentence above is correct, but the second should read "That's Dio's bong."
The apostrophe is used for contractions, as in the first word, and to indicate posession, as in the second.
Quote from: shorebird on November 05, 2005, 10:06:11 AMWhat designates in a sentence that an apostrophe goes on the end of a word?
An apostrophe usually goes at the end of a word to indicate possession of something which already ends in "s." For example: That's Diomedes' bong. You don't want to write "Diomedes's bong." That would be incorrect.
Sometimes the apostrophe is used to indicate that the word has been truncated, either at the beginning or at the end of the word, usually to write slang or colloquialism: Bring that baggie over here, 'cause we need to re-pack Dio's bong somethin' fierce.
Quote from: shorebird on November 05, 2005, 10:06:11 AMI type words like gonna, wanna, gotten and 'cause, mainly 'cause that's the way I talk, and I don't necessarily try to sound like somethin' I'm not. Novels I read quote the characters in them the same way to add realism to the book. If they were all quoted in perfect English, it would make for some boring novels.
fixed
Well, thanks Dio. I can go to bed tonight knowing I'm a little smarter.
I sucked at English, as you probably already know. I could fill this thread up with grammer questions. Maybe I shouldn't get so mad at the 7-11 when I see 10 guys piling out of a landscaping van and none of them know how to speak English, when all I really do is butcher the language. :-D
Quote from: Diomedes on November 05, 2005, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: shorebird on November 05, 2005, 10:06:11 AMThe apostrophe indicates something plural, correct?
No.
Quote from: shorebird on November 05, 2005, 10:06:11 AM Dio's bong is huge! or Thats Dios bong.
The second sentence should have an apostrophe?
It should have two. The first sentence above is correct, but the second should read "That's Dio's bong."
The apostrophe is used for contractions, as in the first word, and to indicate posession, as in the second.
Quote from: shorebird on November 05, 2005, 10:06:11 AMWhat designates in a sentence that an apostrophe goes on the end of a word?
An apostrophe usually goes at the end of a word to indicate possession of something which already ends in "s." For example: That's Diomedes' bong. You don't want to write "Diomedes's bong." That would be incorrect.
Sometimes the apostrophe is used to indicate that the word has been truncated, either at the beginning or at the end of the word, usually to write slang or colloquialism: Bring that baggie over here, 'cause we need to re-pack Dio's bong somethin' fierce.
Quote from: shorebird on November 05, 2005, 10:06:11 AMI type words like gonna, wanna, gotten and 'cause, mainly 'cause that's the way I talk, and I don't necessarily try to sound like somethin' I'm not. Novels I read quote the characters in them the same way to add realism to the book. If they were all quoted in perfect English, it would make for some boring novels.
fixed
Nice post. Pure quality.