You don't have to take what I say to heart at all! But, I'd just like to point out....
Though I'm not as bad as most grammar nazi's,
@Tom- Oh god, snickerdoodles...HI JAZ LETS BE FRIENDS. :D
Another thing that bugs me is when people people list off objects and don't put a comma between the last two items, like this, and this, and this and this.
http://grammar-nazi.urbanup.com/1012139 (http://grammar-nazi.urbanup.com/1012139)Though I'm not as bad as most grammar nazi's,
Which nazi, and the nazi's... what?
http://grammar-nazi.urbanup.com/1012139 (http://grammar-nazi.urbanup.com/1012139)Though I'm not as bad as most grammar nazi's,
Which nazi, and the nazi's... what?
Because of my easy going nature I'm not super nit picky when it comes to grammar and spelling. Truth told I'll admit I'm not the world's greatest expert on grammar and spelling, I'm actually a moderate. As in I demand that people's spelling and grammar be legible enough that I can actually comprehend what they're communicating.
RUN ON SENTENCES AND NO COMMAS (ASDJFAKISJFOAF)
LOL! Nice one jaybug you win!
I AGREE WITH THIS THREAD.~wut
And on a more proper note:
I don't mind if someone uses poor spelling, "inside jokes", poor grammar, ect ONLY IF THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY JOKING.
It annoys me to hell otherwise.
WATI AGREE WITH THIS THREAD.~wut
And on a more proper note:
I don't mind if someone uses poor spelling, "inside jokes", poor grammar, ect ONLY IF THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY JOKING.
It annoys me to hell otherwise.
whut
watWATI AGREE WITH THIS THREAD.~wut
And on a more proper note:
I don't mind if someone uses poor spelling, "inside jokes", poor grammar, ect ONLY IF THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY JOKING.
It annoys me to hell otherwise.
whut
WHUT
D:
^ A lot of that sounds pretty harsh to me. Things like the difference of 'blond' and 'blonde' aren't common knowledge to everyone. I think it's idiotic to insult people just because they don't know trivial grammar tidbits.Relax - no personal or targeted affronts intended. Most of the times where I am using "Hey dipstick," etc in the above, that is only what's going on in my head as I read. I would never direct such invective at any specific person, in my real-world speaking or writing. But that's some of what I think about while reading, and so I wrote about it.
Sometimes I will correct a typo in the box quoting someone else.
Some things that were inappropriate in the past are now grammatically acceptable. It used to be wrong to start a sentence with "and", "but", "yet", or any other words that begin a compound sentance. Another thing that bugs me is when people people list off objects and don't put a comma between the last two items, like this, and this, and this and this.I still get a slight jar out of reading a sentence beginning with 'And,' or 'But.'
blonde / blond :☆The More You Know
The grammatical gender should match the sex of the person. If you write 'the blond I saw on the bus' I know up-front it's a man or a boy. If you later write that the 'blond' was a girl, I now know you write like an idiot. See also premier vs premiere - a different rule applies and it's another great check on if the writer is paying attention to the words he is writing.
"There's three things I want to show you..." :Yes, that is technically correct, however, "there are" doesn't roll off the tongue as quickly as one might think, and so "there's" became commonly accepted for pluralized objects and concepts.
Hey dip-wad: 'There is' means you are going to indicate ONE of something or an uncountable amount of stuff; another reason why they as a singular sounds jarring to me.
I adore this thread and I think it needs to be resurrected. Especially because I am seeing people use the wrong 'there', 'they're' and 'their' more than ever!!!!
Prinz Eugen, whatever you do, do not study Old English. lolTOO LATE!
Seriously, double negatives were exceedingly common. Repetition denoted degree.French uses "fore-and-aft" negative markers too, and they sort-a 'invited themselves over' into the English realm for about 350yrs, starting with William of Normandy, 1066.