# Completely off-topic grammar lesson



## rlc1 (Sep 15, 2003)

I just can't take it anymore.

It's "should have" or "would have", folks, not "should of" or "would of".

And if you really, really don't care about something then you "couldn't care less"....not "could care less". Think about it.


----------



## ZikZak (Aug 12, 2002)

Also PLEASE note that "there" is a place, "their" is a possessive, and "they're" means "they are." 

Grr!

Thank you for your attention.


----------



## itsmeitsmeitsme (Nov 13, 2003)

Thanks for the lesson, but it probably won't change a thing. I for one don't get too hung up on these types of things. Language is for communication and I understand both ways.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

itsmeitsmeitsme said:


> Thanks for the lesson, but it probably won't change a thing. I for one don't get too hung up on these types of things. Language is for communication and I understand both ways.


Couldn't agree more. As long as you know what I'm talking about, then what I was saying did it's job 

I butcher stuff all the time, but people still know what I am saying.


----------



## ZikZak (Aug 12, 2002)

Disagree. 

For instance, "they're," and "there," although they sound the same, are two completely different words, meaning two completely different things, and occupy completely different mental spaces. Misusing the words forces the reader to go back and read again and make a concious effort to descramble what you are trying to say.

Eventually, the reader will get it, but you've forced him to spend more time at it and distracted him from what you are trying to communicate. That's rude.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

I always become disoriented when people say they orientate something.


----------



## Joeg180 (Jun 1, 2003)

Another benefit of TCF!


----------



## redtape (Oct 14, 2003)

Could someone come up with a simple way to explain the difference between "than" and "then"?

(I see it as "than" is a comparative and "then" is a time relationship, but there may be a better way of explaining it to people... I constantly see people using "then" when they mean "than").


----------



## wouldworker (Sep 7, 2004)

redtape said:


> Could someone come up with a simple way to explain the difference between "than" and "then"?


How about "If you don't know the difference between 'then' and 'than', then I received a better education than you did"?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Their is a "Happy Hour" forum on this site. This thread would of been better their then here.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

itsmeitsmeitsme said:


> Thanks for the lesson, but it probably won't change a thing. I for one don't get too hung up on these types of things. Language is for communication and I understand both ways.


Also Then and Than aren't interchangeable.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

ZikZak said:


> Disagree.
> 
> For instance, "they're," and "there," although they sound the same, are two completely different words, meaning two completely different things, and occupy completely different mental spaces. Misusing the words forces the reader to go back and read again and make a concious effort to descramble what you are trying to say.
> 
> Eventually, the reader will get it, but you've forced him to spend more time at it and distracted him from what you are trying to communicate. That's rude.


In a novel or written down somewhere, yeah grammer is a lot more important. But in a regular verbal conversation, i think it drops off a lot.


----------



## Olde Fortran (Apr 22, 2006)

For all intensive porpoises, you've misunderestimated how much I could care less.

To me it's half a dozen of one, can't get fooled again of the other.


----------



## ZombiE (Dec 17, 2005)

Someone paid attention in English class.  


"Eventually, the reader will get it, but you've forced him to spend more time at it and distracted him from what you are trying to communicate."

Well I disagree somewhat on this statement. If two people are using the word incorrectly wouldn't they both understand it the same way?

What you were probably trying to say was, "Eventually the higher educated, higher degreed pompous ass would get it......"


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

If it's pet peeve day, my pet peeve for the day is using the "Subject" field for the first ten words of the post, not for the subject. If I can't get at least a vague idea what the post is about from the subject, you did it wrong. (Note: this thread's subject is just fine!)


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

JFC... WGAS... Get over it.. 20 seconds of my life I will never get back. Thanks for wasting it.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Hunter Green said:


> If it's pet peeve day, my pet peeve for the day is using the "Subject" field for the first ten words of the post, not for the subject. If I can't get at least a vague idea what the post is about from the subject, you did it wrong. (Note: this thread's subject is just fine!)


OMG, yes! WTH is wrong with people that they do the first sentence in the subject? It is SO annoying.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Mamoth said:


> JFC... WGAS... Get over it.. 20 seconds of my life I will never get back. Thanks for wasting it.


You lost 20 seconds by (a) reading this thread or (b) typing your reply?


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

drew2k said:


> You lost 20 seconds by (a) reading this thread or (b) typing your reply?


Yes =p


----------



## wouldworker (Sep 7, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> In a novel or written down somewhere, yeah grammer is a lot more important. But in a regular verbal conversation, i think it drops off a lot.


I have a question for you, MikeMar. It is not meant as an insult.

How smart do you think you are? Do you think you are smarter than the average person? I ask because your grammar and spelling are quite poor in your posts. (Again, this is not an insult, as you admit as much.) Perhaps you are Ernest F'ing Hemingway in real life, but your posts make you sound like Ernest P. Worrell. Is that the impression you want people to have of you?


----------



## RCflier (Feb 17, 2004)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned loose vs lose, which is my personal pet peeve.


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

There's one poster I wish would find i.e. and forget he ever knew AKA. Unfortunately, there's a poster on another forum who has adopted this particular bad habit, so it appears to be spreading.

Regarding written versus verbal: which, exactly, do you think we are doing right now?


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

MikeMar said:


> Couldn't agree more. As long as you know what I'm talking about, then what I was saying did it's job


And since you mention it, "it's" means "it is," while the possessive form of "it" is "its."


----------



## Atomike (Jun 12, 2005)

> As long as you know what I'm talking about, then what I was saying did it's job


As long as you don't mind also sending the message "I'm fairly unintelligent". When you use poor grammar, you are saying more than you think. If you enjoy presenting yourself as dumber than average, then improper grammer is appropriate.

Concerning "then" and "than" - "Then" is an indicator of time or contingency. "Than" is an indication of comparison.
"If you're dumber *than* a rock, *then* you will speak improperly".


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

its an online forum
I post in and around many other activities
work comes first over getting a post exactly grammitcally correct

thanks for sharing but if you can not satnd posts that are not 100% spelled correctly or grammitcally proofed then stop reading this one


----------



## mick66 (Oct 15, 2004)

ZombiE said:


> Someone paid attention in English class.
> 
> "Eventually, the reader will get it, but you've forced him to spend more time at it and distracted him from what you are trying to communicate."
> 
> ...


That's right, stupid ignorant people know what other stupid ignorant people are trying to say.


----------



## sabowin (Feb 3, 2003)

Olde Fortran said:


> For all intensive porpoises, you've misunderestimated how much I could care less.
> 
> To me it's half a dozen of one, can't get fooled again of the other.


LLOL!! Love it!


----------



## beejay (Feb 3, 2001)

Atomike said:


> If you enjoy presenting yourself as dumber than average, then improper *grammer* is appropriate.


And the same is true for spelling.


----------



## AppState (Jan 9, 2003)

No personnel attacks


----------



## Atomike (Jun 12, 2005)

> work comes first over getting a post exactly grammitcally correct


I think there's a difference between a simple spelling error, and using the completely wrong word. As stated above, "their" and "they're" are completely different in usage and meaning. Using the wrong one is very much like using the word "horse" when you meant to type "jeans". In other words, it's no accident. It shows that the typist simply does not know the difference between the two words. It shows ignorance and underwhelming intelligence. Quite simply, if you want to be seen as a person of better-than-average intelligence, don't use wrong words.



> And the same is true for spelling. QUOTE]
> You got me there!!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

One of my internet pet peeves is people who don't ever capitalize, and/or either underpunctuate or don't punctuate at all. There are several prolific posters here whose posts I never read, because they're just too semi-literate in form to be worth the effort of figuring out whether there's any content worth reading.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

This argument is for a whole nother place and a whole nother time.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

I raed for the ifnomartion hree and msot polepe can raed a psot eevn if all the wodrs are mllssiped. If you read instead for how well formed a post is, or for how well it uses punctuation then you may just be approaching this forum with the wrong goal in mind. But no porlbem, hvae fun wtih taht


----------



## Olde Fortran (Apr 22, 2006)

Atomike said:


> Using the wrong one is very much like using the word "horse" when you meant to type "jeans". In other words, it's no accident. It shows that the typist simply does not know the difference between the two words.


I can misuse a word when typing fast on a forum just as easily as I can misspell one, even though I know which is which. I do it frequently. Sometimes I reread and catch it before I post. Other times I post and dash.

Oh and I catch it when other people do it. I just have to be paying attention but I'm often not altogether "here" when I'm on a forum.

My biggest issue is putting in programming stuff in like printf when I mean print. The brain very clearly knows the difference between print and printf but the fingers just seem to zoom along under their own power when the brain gets semi-distracted.



Atomike said:


> [ QUOTE]And the same is true for spelling. QUOTE]
> You got me there!!


Of course, using incorrect VBB QUOTE codes is a TRUE sign of a feeble mind! There's NO excuse for that!


----------



## Guindalf (Jun 13, 2001)

...and this has exactly WHAT to do with TiVo???????????

Shouldn't this be in the Happy Hour forum?


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

DougF said:


> This argument is for a whole nother place and a whole nother time.


It's really a mute point.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

rlc1 said:


> I just can't take it anymore.
> 
> It's "should have" or "would have", folks, not "should of" or "would of".
> 
> And if you really, really don't care about something then you "couldn't care less"....not "could care less". Think about it.


As long as you're correcting the grammar of others, I'd expect better use of punctuation from you! You should be careful to include all your punctuation INSIDE your quotes. Your post above, is more correctly:

It's "should have" or "would have," folks, not "should of" or "would of."

and ...not "could care less."

Think about it.
Pete


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

I don't understand why people can't get "I" and "me" right, as in _he sold it to John and I_ (wrong). This is one of the *simplest* things to use properly, but people are so intimidated they freak out and use the wrong one.

Here's the tip: say it exactly the same way you would without the "John and" part! If you say _he sold it to me_, then you say _he sold it to John and me_, not _he sold it to John and I_! Just how simple can you get?!

Most people instinctively use "me" and "I" correctly when used alone, but when they stick a _John and_ in front of it, they turn stupid!


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

rlc1 said:


> It's "should have" or "would have", folks, not "should of" or "would of".


Also _should've_ or _would've_, which probably accounts for people spelling what they think sounds like _of_ when it's really pronounced _'ve_.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

rseligman said:


> Also _should've_ or _would've_, which probably accounts for people spelling what they think sounds like _of_ when it's really pronounced _'ve_.


This thread doesn't effect me, but it seems to be having a big affect on the forum.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

rlc1 said:


> I just can't take it anymore...And if you really, really don't care about something then you "couldn't care less"....not "could care less". Think about it.


I'm not saying it's not misused and/or misunderstood, but the complete phrase is "I could care less, but it's not worth the effort." Just saying "I could care less..." assumes you get the joke. I guess you're not in on it.


----------



## jmace57 (Nov 30, 2002)

RCflier said:


> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned loose vs lose, which is my personal pet peeve.


ARGGGHHH - my #1 too!

Jim

PS - or how about the use of the word "complected" - the word is "complexioned"


----------



## ThreeSoFar'sBro (Oct 10, 2004)

To me, poor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar are a reflection of the author/speaker. Regardless of your background, everyone has the potential to improve if they care to. Not caring to equates, IMHO, to laziness.

Bottom line: right is right, wrong is wrong. Take the time to do/say it correctly.

Typo's, on the other hand, are a result of being human and making mistakes. I have no problem with typo's in an online forum, such as this. Resumes and business communications MUST BE PERFECT.

Just my thoughts. . .


----------



## ZikZak (Aug 12, 2002)

ThreeSoFar'sBro said:


> Typo's, on the other hand, are a result of being human and making mistakes. I have no problem with typo's in an online forum, such as this.












(sorry, had to be done.  )


----------



## mec1991 (Nov 5, 2004)

ThreeSoFar'sBro said:


> To me, poor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar are a reflection of the author/speaker. Regardless of your background, everyone has the potential to improve if they care to. Not caring to equates, IMHO, to laziness.
> 
> Bottom line: right is right, wrong is wrong. Take the time to do/say it correctly.
> 
> ...


Your so very write! And I still want duel tuners...


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

balboa dave said:


> I'm not saying it's not misused and/or misunderstood, but the complete phrase is "I could care less, but it's not worth the effort." Just saying "I could care less..." assumes you get the joke.


I've heard that before. That's a retroactive explanation, invented to rationalize language that actually became warped due to ignorance, laziness, or regional accent. You've heard of a backronym? Well, I guess yours is a _baxplanation_. But it's not true.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> In a novel or written down somewhere, yeah grammer is a lot more important. But in a regular verbal conversation, i think it drops off a lot.


Huh?

But this isn't a verbal conversation; it's a "written down" one (your words). I think the OP point was in these written conversations, at least *attempt* to use proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.

I'm pretty sure in a "regular verbal conversation" (as versus irregular verbal conversation?), no one cares whether you use _its_ or _it's_. Heck, you can even mix up _hear_ and _here_!

Put me in the grammar et al counts category. In reading long threads, I tend to skip posts displaying obvious poor writing skills. Fair or not, I figure if you don't have a basic mastery of the written word, I prolly don't care what you think. I am not referring to the occasional misspelled word or mangled phrase, as none of us are immune. But anyone who continually mixes up their/they're, can't spell anything, broke SHIFT key . . . hey, if you can't be bothered to craft a readable post, why should I bother reading it?

So call me a grammar snob


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> So call me a grammar snob


Hello, my name's Rob. And I'm...

...I'm a grammar snob.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

rseligman said:


> I've heard that before. That's a retroactive explanation, invented to rationalize language that actually became warped due to ignorance, laziness, or regional accent. You've heard of a backronym? Well, I guess yours is a _baxplanation_. But it's not true.


No, you're the one trying to rationalize your position. It's exactly how I use it, and none of the pejoratives you feel you need to justify your position apply to me. Well, maybe lazy sometimes, but in this case, it's completely intentional. I think I first heard it used that way in a Kids in the Hall sketch many years ago. It's much funnier than your version, and perfectly ironic.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Just to remind everybody here that majority of the people on a face of the Earth do not speak English at all. Proper English by no means is a measure of intelligence. I personally know quite a few stupid people who speak perfect English. I always wondered why salesmen, waiters and people with low IQ automatically assume that they are smarter than you if your English is less than perfect and look up to people speaking with a British accent. Do you know that Einstein did not speak perfect English? Had he posted on this board you'd probably figured that he is poorly educated nobody. But as one of previous posters put it


> "Eventually the higher educated, higher degreed pompous ass would get it......"


----------



## dtreese (May 6, 2005)

My paw is sew glade he bowt myself an english Major.


Seriously, one thing that's really starting to bug me is the growing misuse of "myself." I think the reason is that it just screams, "I'm trying to sound smarter than I really am."


----------



## ZikZak (Aug 12, 2002)

samo said:


> Do you know that Einstein did not speak perfect English? Had he posted on this board you'd probably figured that he is poorly educated nobody.


Actually, Einstein's written English was excellent, even poetic. His written German was even better. His eloquent use of language is, in fact, something he is famous for, and therefore evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

ZikZak said:


> Actually, Einstein's written English was excellent, even poetic. His written German was even better. His eloquent use of language is, in fact, something he is famous for, and therefore evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.


Why do I always have to prove to incompetent people that I know what I'm talking about? Here is the article I'm quoting from.


> A physicist, philosopher, humanitarian, pacifist, political agitator and cultural Zionist, Einstein was also a formidable writer, and very quotable. Because he wrote almost exclusively in German, his words have been translated into dozens of languages - though, as everyone knows, much can be lost in translation.





> Einstein never became fluent in English, either written or spoken. In his day, the language of science was German, and there was no need for English until he went to the United States at the age of 54. If he was asked to speak formally or to write a letter or an article, he would first write a draft in German and then a colleague or secretary would translate it. Indeed, sometimes a colleague would write a letter in toto, and Einstein would simply add his signature at the end. The most famous example is his letter to Franklin D Roosevelt, warning the American president about the possibility of Germany's production of atomic weaponry at the dawn of the second world war; it was actually written by physicist and inventor Leo Szilard.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Although I'm guilty of the occasional error and using it's instead of its, it's a pet peeve of mine when people mix up you're and your along with break and brake. 

At my work, a lot of email goes around and I work w/a lot of smart people. If a native English speaker sent out lots of emails w/lots of grammatical errors like the above (and others mentioned in the thread), I'd tend to wonder what's up with them...


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

samo said:


> Why do I always have to prove to incompetent people that I know what I'm talking about?





samo said:


> I managed to rase 2 kids that I'm really proud off.


And you're the competent one?


----------



## dtreese (May 6, 2005)

samo said:


> Why do I always have to prove to incompetent people that I know what I'm talking about? Here is the article I'm quoting from.


I don't wish to argue over Einstein's command of either language, but I'm not sure that citing the _Guardian_ is the best way to defend your position. It's so infamous for errors that it is sometimes referred to as the _Gruniad_. Granted, the _Guardian_ is mostly infamous for typos, but they've had some whopper errors in fact-checking, too. They were almost down to _The New York Times'_ low standards.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

balboa dave said:


> And you're the competent one?


If you question my ability to rase kids - yes, if you question my knowledge of history - yes, if you mean to tell me that my English is screwed up - you got me here. I'm glad that this is a country of immigrants and my broken English does not surprise anybody or puts me at significant disadvantage (except few snobs with superiority complex may make fun of me from time to time). As for preposition at the end, it was, in fact, Sir Winston Churchill who put to rest the "preposition cannot end a sentence rule" with his famous rejoinder that placing the preposition at the end of a sentence is "something up with which we will not put!"


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

samo said:


> except few snobs with superiority complex may make fun of me from time to time





samo said:


> Why do I always have to prove to incompetent people that I know what I'm talking about?


You are what you hate.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

samo said:


> If you question my ability to rase kids - yes, if you question my knowledge of history - yes, if you mean to tell me that my English is screwed up - you got me here. I'm glad that this is a country of immigrants and my broken English does not surprise anybody or puts me at significant disadvantage (except few snobs with superiority complex may make fun of me from time to time). As for preposition at the end, it was, in fact, Sir Winston Churchill who put to rest the "preposition cannot end a sentence rule" with his famous rejoinder that placing the preposition at the end of a sentence is "something up with which we will not put!"


Actually, he was just questioning your ability to type "of"...


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

loose/lose is one of the worst mixed-up word pairs, but sight/site is catching up. I find wonder/wander and accept/except to be mystifying. mute/moot has already been pointed out. Some others: poring/pouring, elicit/illicit, tack/tact, bus/buss, bated/baited, callus/callous, ensure/insure, hoard/horde, and bare/bear.


----------



## Olde Fortran (Apr 22, 2006)

samo said:


> I managed to rase 2 kids that I'm really proud off.





balboa dave said:


> And you're the competent one?


How do you know whether or not he successfully destroyed two kids?


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

This is a lovely debate, it almost seems familiar, as though I've read this before.... 

 

But seriously, is it possible to politely inform someone that they have made a mistake in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation? 

If the corrector starts off as snarky I totally understand a snarky response but everytime I have seen someone offer a correction to someone else the "grammar police" are invoked and then we end up here. 

Can't we all just get along?

Edit:

For spelling


----------



## beejay (Feb 3, 2001)

SeanC said:


> But seriously, is it possible to politely inform someone that they have made a mistake in *grammer*, spelling, and/or punctuation?


OK, you tell me.


----------



## rlc1 (Sep 15, 2003)

NewYorkLaw said:


> As long as you're correcting the grammar of others, I'd expect better use of punctuation from you! You should be careful to include all your punctuation INSIDE your quotes. Your post above, is more correctly:
> 
> It's "should have" or "would have," folks, not "should of" or "would of."
> 
> ...


You're right! Thanks for the corrections. I forgot that you were supposed to include the punctuation inside the quotes.

Really though, folks, I'm kind of dismayed at some of the arguing and nastiness that has gone on in this post (I am the OP). I didn't call anyone unintelligent or stupid for misusing the language this way. I certainly would never intentionally insult an immigrant who doesn't have a perfect command of the language. I was just having a little fun and pointing out a couple of pet peeves.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

rlc1 said:


> You're right! Thanks for the corrections. I forgot that you were supposed to include the punctuation inside the quotes.


Not all punctuation. Question marks and exclamation points can vary depending on the situation...

_Pony asked, "So, who here is going to run out and buy a fancy new TiVo?"

I said, "I wish I could afford a fancy new TiVo!"_

...but...

_Did Pony really use the phrase "a fancy new TiVo"?

I can't believe he used the phrase "a fancy new TiVo"!_

This is also something that differs between the U.S. and the U.K., where it's more common to put commas and periods outside the quotation marks -- so if you see a British poster doing that, try not to start an international incident.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

This makes me want to be aversarial again.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Now if everyone would just use the serial comma I would be happy.

This post is dedicated to my Parents, TivoShannon and God.


----------



## shady (May 31, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Also Then and Than aren't interchangeable.


Also Than and Then aren't interchangeable

Hmm, seems to work ok!


----------



## mgar (Feb 14, 2005)

trainman said:


> Not all punctuation. Question marks and exclamation points can vary depending on the situation...
> 
> _Pony asked, "So, who here is going to run out and buy a fancy new TiVo?"
> 
> ...


You are missing a couple of commas:

Did Pony really use the phrase, "a fancy new Tivo"?

Also, if the phrase being quoted is a complete sentence, then use capitalization:

Did Pony really say, "My Tivo is bigger than yours"?


----------



## Fraser+Dief (Nov 18, 2005)

trainman said:


> This is also something that differs between the U.S. and the U.K., where it's more common to put commas and periods outside the quotation marks -- so if you see a British poster doing that, try not to start an international incident.


Yup. I'm looking at that "correction" wondering why he thought it was wrong.

The comma wasn't part of the incorrect statement the original poster was quoting, so why should it be inside the quotes? The mythical ignoramus needs to say "should have" not "should have," in his statement "I should of gone to school".

I know it's a US rule, but I really think you guys missed the boat on this one. A quote should demark *only* what the original poster said, not extras like punctuation.

I really believe that you guys were so driven to be independent that you stubbornly changed a bunch of rules, not because of need, but just to be unique. 
"OK, everybody, drop your U's from colour and neighbour, and punctuation inside quotes!" Sort of an instant culture creation in 1776.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

It was a little later than that, and while independence was a large part of the reason, some of it was an intentional effort towards making the language simpler and more logical. It was also largely the efforts of a single man.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fraser+Dief said:


> Sort of an instant culture creation in 1776.


Man, you guys hold a grudge a long time 

Good thing we are always on the same side after that :up:


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Their is a "Happy Hour" forum on this site. This thread would of been better their then here.


Ditto on "Happy Hour"...

I both could and could not care less about this topic. My grammar and spelling suck - I both accept and except that.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

davezatz said:


> Ditto on "Happy Hour"...
> 
> I both could and could not care less about this topic. My grammar and spelling suck - I both accept and except that.


geez - did you not read the thread

that shoud be

I neitehr could of or could not of cared more about this topic. MY grammar adn spelling suck; I both accept and expect that.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

IMO, if the meaning is clear, it's rude to grammatically or spellingwise correct somebody, unless you're in a classroom setting. This is TCF, not a classroom.

That being said, let me say something about their vs. they're. I'm 100% familiar with the differences, and if quizzed on it, I'll spout off the answers almost by instinct. But when I type quickly, sometimes the words could get interchanged. (e.g. I might type their when I mean they're.) It doesn't mean I don't understand the difference. It just means I was typing faster than my brain could keep up. Correcting me will do no good, because I already 100% understand the difference.

IOW, don't infer that just because a post was misspelled, that the poster doesn't know the correct spelling.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

mgar said:


> You are missing a couple of commas:
> 
> Did Pony really use the phrase, "a fancy new Tivo"?


The style I used back when I was a closed captioner would have left that comma out because the quoted material isn't a complete sentence _and_ isn't introduced by a verb along the lines of "said."

Of course, I would also have used ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, so maybe I should rethink my blind devotion to the style I used to use.


----------



## mgar (Feb 14, 2005)

timckelley said:


> IMO, if the meaning is clear, it's rude to grammatically or spellingwise correct somebody, unless you're in a classroom setting. This is TCF, not a classroom.
> 
> ...


It's not rude to correct grammar in a thread such as this one. I think it is more of a sport. This thread is the only place that I would even attempt to correct grammar. Usually I am the one that needs correcting.

Otherwise, I agree that it is usually rude to correct someone's spelling or grammar.


----------



## jmace57 (Nov 30, 2002)

SullyND said:


> Now if everyone would just use the serial comma I would be happy.
> 
> This post is dedicated to my Parents, TivoShannon and God.


The weird thing is that people my age were taught to put commas the way you did in your sentence.

My kids (20 and 21) were taught to do it like this:

This post is dedicated to my Parents, TivoShannon, and God.

Looks wrong to me.

Jim


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mgar said:


> Otherwise, I agree that it is usually rude to correct someone's spelling or grammar.


True.

Usually, I just mock them mightily in my brain.

So as not to be all rude and stuff.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jmace57 said:


> The weird thing is that people my age were taught to put commas the way you did in your sentence.
> 
> My kids (20 and 21) were taught to do it like this:
> 
> ...


You would only leave out the second comma if TiVoShannon and God were connected apart from your parents. If all the items are equal, then they all get commas.

(I'm 45...)


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

jmace57 said:


> The weird thing is that people my age were taught to put commas the way you did in your sentence.
> 
> My kids (20 and 21) were taught to do it like this:
> 
> ...


The different style guides conflict on whether or not to use it. You see the advantage to it though, don't you? (I am not the son of God - or TiVoShannon)...

I have to go to the store to get a sandwich, peanut butter and jelly. Am I getting one object or three?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

rlc1 said:


> And if you really, really ....


You shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction.

Conjunction junction, what's your function? (Hookin' up clauses and...)


----------



## dtreese (May 6, 2005)

This isn't really a grammar issue, but currently, five of the first ten threads in the TiVo Help Center are titled with some variant of "help!!!" or "please help!!" I'm a little edgy right now, so it may just be my temper, but I find it amusing that people posting in the *Help Center* would not use a more helpful title. Well, I'm just MMSing before med school finals, so forget it.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Hear, hear.


----------



## Narkul (Nov 7, 2004)

Check out that babe over they're.

I did not have to spend any time trying to figure out what that sentence meant. It's all about context. It may be annoying to some, but it should not take any additional time for your brain to work it out. Did that comma need to be in that last sentence. Who cares!?! My grammar sucks. If you don't like it, go post on the grammatically correct forum. Oh wait a minute, there's not one.


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

balboa dave said:


> It's exactly how I use it, and none of the pejoratives you feel you need to justify your position apply to me.


Easy, there. I didn't say *you* were any of those pejoratives. I said the original phrase became twisted due to those attributes in others. The "could" version of the phrase didn't even appear in print until 1966. As my favorite site for English errors says, _Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common I could care less._


> I think I first heard it used that way in a Kids in the Hall sketch many years ago. It's much funnier than your version, and perfectly ironic.


I never said it's only a few stupid people using it. I acknowledge it's achieved widespread use, requiring some to invent the explanation that it's intentional, rather than acknowledging it's a malformed phrase that's taken on the meaning of its progenitor through frequent usage. As for the claim that it's ironic... _The original already drips sarcasm, so its pointless to argue that the newer version is ironic. People who misuse this phrase are just being careless._

Have a read: http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-08/2005-08-23-voa1.cfm


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

This will answer all.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html


----------



## Fraser+Dief (Nov 18, 2005)

Hunter Green said:


> It was a little later than that, and while independence was a large part of the reason, some of it was an intentional effort towards making the language simpler and more logical. It was also largely the efforts of a single man.


Ah, very nice cite. Thank you, didn't know that bit of history. :up:


----------

