OT - Another grammar venting thread

[QuikSand]

We've done this before... I'll start another one. It's therapeutic for me.


When people posted about the use of the word dominate when the user wanted to say dominant, I really didn't see it as any issue. But now, I seem to see it all over the place, including frequently here at FOFC.

Just in case you're unsure:

dominate (DOM-en-AYT) - verb only - to control; to defeat mightily

dominant (DOM-en-unt) - adjective only - to have great might or power; to possess the power to dominate



And the one that got me back on this topic. I work with lawyers, and I cannot believe how frequent this mmistake is:

moot (moot) <rhymes with "boot"> - adjective - pointless; already decided

mute (myoot) - adjective - unable to speak or make sound


I cannot believe how many educated people I see/know who talk about a point being mute.



I hereby grant license to anyone who wishes to vent about grammar to do so here in this thread, without anyone being called a dick except me.

[Fritz]

you are a dick

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
you are a dick

Shouldn't that be "your a dick"?

;)

[dawgfan]

That post was dominate Quik, but I believe it's a mute point.

[Hands to the Face]

OK, I'll take advantage of the immunity to register my disgust about the increasingly frequent misuse of the word "myself" when either "I" or "me" are correct, as in "The only people in the room were Fritz and myself."

"Myself" is a reflexive pronoun used only in self-referential cases like "Fine! I'll just do it myself" and is not an all-purpose substitute for simple pronouns.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I hereby grant license to anyone who wishes to vent about grammar to do so here in this thread, without anyone being called a dick except me.Oh, so you think having the title "President Of The General Partner" gives you the rights to grant license around here??? ;)

Communicating with teenagers often via IM and e-mail affords me the opportunity to get frustrated quite often. Here are my two pet peeves:

"alot"--Don't even get me started. I see it around here a lot too. Drives me NUTS. Grrrrrrrrrrrr! :mad:

"your"--(as in, "Your a good guitar player.") Do they not teach what a contraction is in Government Schools any more???

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Hands to the Face
OK, I'll take advantage of the immunity to register my disgust about the increasingly frequent misuse of the word "myself" when either "I" or "me" are correct, as in "The only people in the room were Fritz and myself."

"Myself" is a reflexive pronoun used only in self-referential cases like "Fine! I'll just do it myself" and is not an all-purpose substitute for simple pronouns.

Now Quik is being a real dick

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
Shouldn't that be "your a dick"?
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

{Runs from room, screaming}

[SplitPersonality1]

"dominate/dominant", "moot/mute" - whatever.

It doesn't bother me much. But I guess I'm just one of those people that takes things for granite.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
Now Quik is being a real dick

Now you get it.

[Fritz]

I hate Georgian grammatical supremacists...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fritz
I hate Georgian grammatical supremacists... You'll get over it.

[Franklinnoble]

One of the things that ticks me off is a bit of poor grammar my stepson picked up from my mother-in-law. Any time he wants a drink from the kitchen, he asks,

"Can I get me a drink?"

Aaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhh! Nails on the fricken' chalkboard, if you asked me. Of course, I reply,

"No, simply because of your butchery of the King's English. The proper way to ask is 'May I have a drink?' or perhaps 'May I get myself something to drink?' But for now, if you're thirsty, go outside and drink from the garden hose."

[cuervo72]

I just spotted this one again: definatly. Not a grammatical error, but something I see too often.

[Bee]

Originally posted by cuervo72
I just spotted this one again: definatly. Not a grammatical error, but something I see too often.

your definatly write.

:D

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
your definatly write.You're going to make Ol' SkyDog spontaneously combust if you don't watch out. :mad:

[Bee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
You're going to make Ol' SkyDog spontaneously combust if you don't watch out. :mad:

I think there's a guy named Happy offering a reward for that...
:p

[FrogMan]

As many of you may know, I'm French Canadian (boo, hiss, okay, I get it :) ) but what you may not know is that I started learning English in 5th grade. My parents never spoke to me in English, heck they know about 10 English words in all :) I later worked for two years in the States and now I like to think that I have a fairly good English vocabulary and knowledge of the English grammar .

Sure, any of you could pick apart that last paragraph and point all the syntax error, but you get my point.

I'm always amazed at how many times I will see the "your/you're", "too/to", "alot/a lot", "there/their/they're". I get the feeling people just get lazy when they're in front of a keyboard. Reason I say this is because I see some similarly stupid mistakes in French communications (emails mostly). Most of the time, it's some stuff so basic, you learn in 4th grade.

I mean, it's not because you are sitting in front of your computer that you have to stop being intelligent and articulate. For me somebody might be making a perfectly valid point in an argument, but if it's full of mistakes like the ones mentionned above, the point loses credibility...

FM

[cthomer5000]

People at FOFC often go around congradulating each other. Unless this is a cute play on words specifically relating to someone graduating high school or college, it's painful to look at.

[scooper]

People spelling Cincinnati C-i-n-c-i-n-a-t-t-i. ;)

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
"No, simply because of your butchery of the King's English. The proper way to ask is 'May I have a drink?' or perhaps 'May I get myself something to drink?' But for now, if you're thirsty, go outside and drink from the garden hose."


Funny, this issue just came up somewhere else last week....

DON’T DRINK FROM THE GARDEN HOSE!

There is nothing quite like a long, cold drink from the garden hose during a hot summer day of gardening or playing with the kids. But there could be a hidden danger in drinking from the garden hose.

Hose linings are made from scrap recycled polyvinyl chloride (PVC). In extreme temperatures, PVC can leach vinyl chloride directly into that water that you or your pets are drinking. Chemical experts say that’s one more harmful chemical that you might be putting in your body or on your vegetable garden.

Nobody is going to warn you about the alleged danger from the PVC hose unless you buy your hose in California. That’s because voters there passed Proposition 65, which requires a list of all potential carcinogens and reproductive toxins (birth-defect-causing chemicals) to be compiled. The law also requires all products to carry a warning label if they expose users to any trace elements of these chemicals. And it prohibits release of such chemicals into drinking water.

In California, garden hoses, faucet fittings, paint, baby powder and even lawnmowers carry these safety labels. Warnings are not offered in the other 49 states unless manufacturers voluntarily supply them. So why is California the only state requiring these labels? The answer is that voters clearly wanted to know everything they were exposed to that could be harmful to their health. The law exempts companies from including the labels if they can prove that the amount of known carcinogens will cause less than one excess death in every 100,000 individuals exposed or if the amount of reproductive toxin will cause no observable effect even if multiplied by 1,000 times.

Some companies have tried to take advantage of safety-conscious shoppers by selling hoses made exclusively for drinking water. However, they are more expensive, and you still have to watch out for back flow. Back flow is a common problem where low water pressure allows dirty water, pesticides and other liquids outside the hose to flow back into it.

The best advice public health officials have is to keep watering your lawn and let the kids spray each other down I hot weather. But when you need clean water to make iced tea, lemonade or other drinks, get the water from a safe source such as a tap in the kitchen sink or a sealed water bottle.

For more information on the California safe environmental labeling law and on potential carcinogenic elements used in everyday products, go to:
www.prop65news.com
www.calprop65.com
www.oehha.org/prop65/background

Article reprinted from The Costco Connection
Written by: David Horowitz, consumer advocate

[Abe Sargent]

I'm a paid writer. Just signed a three article deal for $450, which is a pretty good sum for Internet writing. My regular deal is $25/weekly column.

My ever dwindling point is that I am a writer, and yet, there are some grammatical issues that I can't scale. Oh, I'm good enough with the basics - you're vs your; it's vs its and all that. But there is one area that I am most difinately deficiant in:

Fewer
vs.
Less

TO THIS DAY, I have no idea how one is different than the other. I look them up, people explian them to me, doesn't matter. Two days later I've forgotten and start using them interchangably. Drives my editor batty.

-Anxiety

[QuikSand]

Anxiety, the fewer versus less is one that my co-workers confise all the time, and the explanation doesn't seem to stick. The best I have is this, for nearly all circumstances:

Fewer/less are adjectives used to say "how much" of something...
If the thing is singular, use less.
If the thing is plural, use fewer.

So, it's:

less fat but fewer calories
fewer dollars, but less money
...and so forth.

Basically, fewer is used when you are "counting" things - even if it's a measurement (like fewer gallons of gas). When the thing is something that is just in a general quantity, use "less" (like less gasoline).


Maybe a useful mnemonic is this:

Less ends with an "s" - which means it goes with the singular noun.

[Killebrew]

As many of you know, I am against the over use of the term "that said". That being said, there are occasions when the term is appropriate. Having said that, the term is often redundant, so over use to appear more intelligent can backfire. Having just said what I just said, I commend Quik for this thread as it may encourage others to speak more gooder English.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Killebrew
As many of you know, I am against the over use of the term "that said". That being said, there are occasions when the term is appropriate. Having said that, the term is often redundant, so over use to appear more intelligent can backfire. Having just said what I just said, I commend Quik for this thread as it may encourage others to speak more gooder English.

That was well said.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Anxiety, the fewer versus less is one that my co-workers confise all the time, and the explanation doesn't seem to stick. The best I have is this, for nearly all circumstances:


I hate it when people mix up confuse and confise.

[JeeberD]

The one that always drives me crazy is there, their, and they're. It's easy enough to figure out which one to use, so why do people screw it up so often?

[korme]

isant

my friend is possibly the worst speller I've ever seen.

[FrogMan]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Basically, fewer is used when you are "counting" things - even if it's a measurement (like fewer gallons of gas). When the thing is something that is just in a general quantity, use "less" (like less gasoline).


So it's the same they teach us how to use "how much" and "how many". If you can count, it's "how many", if you cannot count, it's "how much". Am I right? If so, thanks, I've just learned something I didn't know...

FM

[Fritz]

Originally posted by FrogMan
So it's the same they teach us how to use "how much" and "how many". If you can count, it's "how many", if you cannot count, it's "how much". Am I right? If so, thanks, I've just learned something I didn't know...

FM

if you can not count I would not worry about perfect grammar.

[korme]

Originally posted by JeeberD
The one that always drives me crazy is there, their, and they're. It's easy enough to figure out which one to use, so why do people screw it up so often?

That and to/too/two. Probably over 50% of the people I talk to online NEVER use too. Maybe it's just online talk, but it isn't difficult.

[FrogMan]

Originally posted by Fritz
if you can not count I would not worry about perfect grammar.

You're funny Fritz, really :D :D

[scooper]

Originally posted by Killebrew
As many of you know, I am against the over use of the term "that said". That being said, there are occasions when the term is appropriate. Having said that, the term is often redundant, so over use to appear more intelligent can backfire. Having just said what I just said, I commend Quik for this thread as it may encourage others to speak more gooder English.

You don't say.

[FrogMan]

Originally posted by Shorty3281
That and to/too/two. Probably over 50% of the people I talk to online NEVER use too. Maybe it's just online talk, but it isn't difficult.

Hey, they save one letter every 50 or so words, that's gotta count at the end of the day :)

I agree, I don't understand why people always feel the need to cut words short on IM...

FM

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by Anxiety
But there is one area that I am most difinately deficiant in:

And it isn't spelling? :D

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
So why is California the only state requiring these labels? The answer is that voters clearly wanted to know everything they were exposed to that could be harmful to their health.

I call bullshit.

[start rant]

California requires these labels for the same reason that they require over 3 times the vehicle tax, twice the income tax, at least 10% more sales tax, stricter and more expensive emissions requirements for vehicles, and a resultant chronic budget deficit as compared to any other state in the union.

The bureacracy here is practically socialist, for all intents and purposes. I've been drinking from garden hoses since I was old enough to suck on anything aside from my momma's tit. My dogs drink water taken from the hose. My garden is watered from the hose. You know what? Nothing's dropped dead, developed cancer, or contracted mad cow disease.

I didn't even know we had this stupid law here, but now I know why I'll pay 20% more for a frickin' rubber hose here than I would anywhere else in the U.S.A.

You know what? The other 49 states don't care. People wanna go to Home Depot and buy the cheapest damned hose on the rack. And it's perfectly safe to drink from it. If you let the water run long enough for the hot water to run out and the cool water to start flowing, chances are anything potentially harmful has just been flushed.

[/end rant]

[Fritz]

Franklinnoble is one of my favorite posters

[Abe Sargent]

Originally posted by SackAttack
And it isn't spelling? :D

I sincerely hope that you recognize that my published writing has a completely different set of criteria than my posts of some Internet chat board.


I hope ;)

-Anxiety

[SackAttack]

That's what they all say, my friend. That's what they all say. :D

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
I call bullshit.

Ha! Someone took that warning seriously, but it wasn't me. Like I said, the subject came up elsewhere and it popped into my head when I read the previous thread, so I found it and pasted it. I don't know whether any of it is true or not.

Isn't Fritz Comanche for "drinks from hoses?" Ask him.

[Kodos]

Originally posted by SplitPersonality1
"dominate/dominant", "moot/mute" - whatever.

It doesn't bother me much. But I guess I'm just one of those people that takes things for granite.

Okay, if nobody else will give sp1 credit for some nice work here, I will. Nice job, sp1! :D

And "Our team was dominate today" drives me batty!

[SplitPersonality1]

Thanks Kodos. I'm glad it didn't go unnoticed. :)

[Desnudo]

u r all noobs. lmao

[albionmoonlight]

When someone says "She gave the book to Robert and I."

This mistake gets me more than "Me and Robert went to the store."

In the second instance, I can just assume that the person does not know the difference between objective and nominative case and is using the lazy way of speaking.

In the first instance, you have someone who obviously cares enough about grammar to try to get it right, but who does not care so much to actually learn the proper usage. It's like they have a vague sense that smart people say that "Robert and I went to the store," but really have no idea why smart people say that. Instead of learning why--they just start to use "I" in all cases, apparently on the assumption that its what smart people say instead of “me.”

If you are not going to learn the rule, just don't learn the rule. Don't try and sound like you know that about which you are speaking when you do not.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
When someone says "She gave the book to Robert and I."

. . .

If you are not going to learn the rule, just don't learn the rule. Don't try and sound like you know that about which you are speaking when you do not.

Hmmm. I know quite a lot of educated people who make this mistake with regularity.

I never thought to assign them such malice, though. I always just thought it must be an easy mistake to make, for some reason.

[Craptacular]

Ill never seize to be amazed at the kind of crap y'all talk about in this hear place.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Craptacular
...this hear place.

On an unrlated note...

When you want to exalt your enthusiastic agreement with something someone just said, the phrase is:

"Hear! Hear!"

...and not "Here, here!"

Think of it as "Hey everyone, come hear what this guy just said."

[scooper]

Irregardless. That one gets me. It's regardless.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by FrogMan
So it's the same they teach us how to use "how much" and "how many". If you can count, it's "how many", if you cannot count, it's "how much". Am I right? If so, thanks, I've just learned something I didn't know...

Yes, correct.

Use "how many" and "fewer" when you are talking about countable, discrete* items, which are amlost always plural.

Use "how much" and "less" when talking about items that are not countable but just in quantity, which are almost always singular.



* - not to be confused with discreet items, such as 10-inch vibrators

[SplitPersonality1]

Originally posted by QuikSand
* - not to be confused with discreet items, such as 10-inch vibrators

I was not expecting this that line. :D I had just taken a big swig of soda and almost lost it all over my monitor.

Quik. Could you give a bit of a warning next time! :)

[dawgfan]

Is a 10" vibrator really discrete?

[QuikSand]

*winces*

It's discrete (separable) from the lipstick tube next to it in the handbag, but at its nearly-colossal length it's probably not exactly discreet, you're right.

[Franklinnoble]

Save the colossal 10-inch vibrator!

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
When someone says "She gave the book to Robert and I."

This mistake gets me more than "Me and Robert went to the store."

The way to learn ya this 'un correctly (:p) is to simply remove the other person from the sentence. If it makes sense, it's correct; if not, you've got it wrong:

She gave the book to I.

Me went to the store to buy cookies. Me love cookies.

Unless you are the Cookie Monster, those are clearly wrong, and no one would form those sentences that way.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by QuikSand I hereby grant license to anyone who wishes to vent about grammar to do so here in this thread, without anyone being called a dick except me.

Do we have license to call Sky Dog a dick since he started using his authority?

Or do we just get to make statements like "Eye want too sea you're hed exploud"?

Also, Kickstand, should I point out that typos hurt your credibility. O, an' ura dick. :D

SI

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by QuikSand
*winces*

It's discrete (separable) from the lipstick tube next to it in the handbag, but at its nearly-colossal length it's probably not exactly discreet, you're right.

Hehehe, gotcha.

[dawgfan]

Irregardless of some previous post's (alot of witch were to innecessary) I think weve taken grammar for granite. My friends and me think less posters aught to pay to much attention too this stuff - their not real discrete in being anal-attentive. That said, its a mute point - the dominate attitude is to just say its a typo. Or to blame it on Cincinatti...

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by dawgfan
Irregardless of some previous post's (alot of witch were to innecessary) I think weve taken grammar for granite. My friends and me think less posters aught to pay to much attention too this stuff - their not real discrete in being anal-attentive. That said, its a mute point - the dominate attitude is to just say its a typo. Or to blame it on Cincinatti...

I'm pretty sure I don't want to see you and your friends when they are hanging around being anal-attentive. ;)

SI

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by sterlingice
I'm pretty sure I don't want to see you and your friends when they are hanging around being anal-attentive. ;)

SI

Oh boy, I just read the Sodomite post, and the next one I read contains this line. I can forsee GLAAD taking an interest in FOFC future posts :D

[dawgfan]

OK, I just saw a frequent misspelling that has been bugging me lately - rediculous.

Seems like many of these grammar faux pas are the result of someone spelling a word like they hear it pronounced. The difference in pronunciation between "dominant" and "dominate" is subtle for many people, thus it's not surprising to see this word misused/misspelled often. Same thing with "taking something for granite". The above case is another example - for some people it may seem more appropriate to spell the word with an "e", associating that letter more with the sound "eh" or "ee" than the letter "i", which they may associate more with the sound "eye".

I'm a hypocrite of course, venting on a grammar mistake after spending so much time being a smart-ass in this thread...

[CamEdwards]

As far as grammar goes, I try and keep my verbage simple enough that I don't run the risk of butchered syntax.

Spelling, on the other hand...

definitely. I hate to spell that word. I spell it definately.

restaurant. Also hate it. I always spell it restaraunt.

anything ending in eous. I always throw an extra vowel or two in their. Courageouious.

[thesloppy]

Slightly off-topic, but there is a grammar mistake I actually miss. Whatever happened to the days of "I says"? That little gem was especially precious when overheard in it's redundant form as in (actual real-life quote):

Toofless lady: "I says to him, I says 'you can cum on me, but you can't piss on me'"

[kcchief19]

I'm a pretty big fan of dashes and semicolons -- as is evident from many of my posts -- so it bothers me when I see them misused. I'm sure I have occassionally misused them myself in casual situations. I am not a saint.

I had an editor for whom the word "also" was a hot button issue. She insisted that there was a certain position where also should always be in a sentence. I just don't remember where the position was. After years of searching for a corroborative source, I recently found an article at the University of Delaware Grammar Hotline that said you can pretty much put also any damn place you please.

I share an irritation with a fellow at work about acronyms versus initialism. An acronym is a word formed by combining initial letters or parts of words to create a new word, such as radar, scuba or NASA. Initialism is when a series of initial letters or parts of words are used to create an initial that does not form a word, such as FBI or FOFC.

[Kevin]

What pacifically are you guys getting at?

[Samdari]

Originally posted by QuikSand
On an unrlated note...

When you want to exalt your enthusiastic agreement with something someone just said, the phrase is:

"Hear! Hear!"

...and not "Here, here!"

Think of it as "Hey everyone, come hear what this guy just said."
thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou

look how much typing I saved by not including spaces!

[Ben E Lou]

Ahhh.....that reminds me of one that bugs this Southerner.

It is "Y'all" NOT "Ya'll", for crying out loud!!!

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ahhh.....that reminds me of one that bugs this Southerner.

It is "Y'all" NOT "Ya'll", for crying out loud!!!


But this is something that's rarely written, isn't it? Unless you're trying to capture someone's dialect, like in a book or a real-life quote, that term shouldn't be anywhere near a piece of paper. I understand that people say it all the time, but like 'ain't,' it would not be appropriate to use it in a written sentence.

I hope kids aren't learning to use that type of slang in their written work.

[Ben E Lou]

I see it typed in e-mails, IM's and on message boards quite frequently, and it is nearly ALWAYS done incorrectly. Yes, I've also seen it in books done incorrectly as well. Damn yankee authors.

{walks away muttering under his breath that he's glad they freed the slaves, but now they need to stay out of our business....}

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

Lewis Grizzard never, ever did it wrong in any of HIS books though, dadgummit!

[cuervo72]

I'd think "y'all" would be pretty easy, it's just a contraction of "you" and "all". In that sense, it would be more valid than "ain't", which really isn't a valid contraction (at least I can't figure out what the first word would be).

[Alf]

title
vs
titie

----

On the FOFC boards, it is a must to say I won four consecutive tities, in that case title does not apply

[sachmo71]

What the fuck is a frush?

[JeeberD]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ahhh.....that reminds me of one that bugs this Southerner.

It is "Y'all" NOT "Ya'll", for crying out loud!!!

I am very guilty of that one. I know that it's supposed to be "y'all", but I just like "ya'll" better. My sister always gets on my case about that one also..

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by sachmo71
What the fuck is a frush? ROFLMBAO!

[KWhit]

Originally posted by sachmo71
What the fuck is a frush?

This quote comes up every time I play poker with my buddies.

Somehow it never gets old.

[digamma]

After reading that NCAA 2004 interview, I would say typing "Yea" when you mean "Yeah" is up there for me now.

[Simms]

Biggest pet peeves (aside from the already oft-mentioned its/it's, your/you're, and their/there/they're debacles):

"Irregardless" (previously mentioned), "anyways", and "towards" .... none are words in the (North American) English language.

"You've got..." (yes, as in "You've got mail!") It's redundant.

That said (sorry, Killebrew :) ), I'm a big fan of "that said" when used properly and in moderation. Very effective transition more often than not.

[primelord]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
anything ending in eous. I always throw an extra vowel or two in their. Courageouious.

I am guessing that was on purpose? :)

[korme]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ahhh.....that reminds me of one that bugs this Southerner.

It is "Y'all" NOT "Ya'll", for crying out loud!!!

Thank you, SkyHick!

[scooper]

Originally posted by Simms


"Irregardless" (previously mentioned), "anyways", and "towards" .... none are words in the English language.




Not 100% true. "towards" is correct usage when speaking English in England, but not in the US.

[Simms]

Originally posted by scooper
Not 100% true. "towards" is correct usage when speaking English in England, but not in the US.

I stand corrected. :)

Edited for clarity.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by scooper
Not 100% true. "towards" is correct usage when speaking English in England, but not in the US.

And don't people in Canada (like Simms, eh?) generally follow the British conventions for proper English?

For heaven's sake, they say al-yoo-MIN-ee-um -- they have to be following somebody's lead.

[Simms]

Originally posted by QuikSand
And don't people in Canada (like Simms, eh?) generally follow the British conventions for proper English?

When writing, yes ("The centre of the harbour was ablaze with colour."). When speaking, we generally try to avoid it. :)

For heaven's sake, they say al-yoo-MIN-ee-um -- they have to be following somebody's lead.

I have never said (nor heard anybody up here say, save the occasional Brit transplant) "al-yoo-MIN-ee-um" in my life. If I did, I'd probably ask somebody nearby to kindly beat that pronunciation out of me, eh?

Hoser...

;)

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Kevin
What pacifically are you guys getting at?

Supposively, we gots to work on our grammar.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Craptacular
Supposively, we gots to work on our grammar.

That's gramma', ewe fool.

SI

[Airhog]

fo shizzle?

[JeeberD]

Why are we venting my Grammar? Did she crap in her Depends again?

[dawgfan]

Aaargh! From the Joe Morgan ESPN chat this afternoon (here is the link (http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=3750)):

"They are not as dominate."

This is quickly growing as my biggest grammar pet-peeve...

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by Simms
That said (sorry, Killebrew :) ), I'm a big fan of "that said" when used properly and in moderation. Very effective transition more often than not.
Good ole' reliable "that said" - the intellectual form of "‘ya know":). More annoying, misused, abused, overused, or generally useless words and phrases:
Weapons of mass destruction - What a freaking joke, we get the picture already. Honestly I can't understand why more people were not insulted by the overuse of this term about 6 months ago, a great example of a forced buzzword. It was getting to the point where saying it was like a politician saying "Hey you! This bad thing! Make Mongo mad!". The good news for those of us who get migraines watching the news is that most politicians won't dare utter the term these days. Hey, we're stupid but we're not that stupid for an extended length of time. Ahh the relief.
The big picture - I am using this phrase far too much these days, some one throw a boot at me. That said, when you look at the big picture the fact of the matter is that weapons of mass destruction is bad thing and make Mongo mad.
Make no mistake about it - Okay, picking on W. here but come on, where the hell does he pick up this shit? I guess it is all written for him so I should really complain about his choice of speech writers.
It's all good No it's not, at least not that phrase. What is good is the fact this 90's term is slowly dying out due to the show-your-age embarrassment that can result when the phrase is overused. Soon saying "It's all good" will be like saying "look boss, the plane, the plane!". A near banished phrase - it’s a good thing. Hmmm, better add "it’s a good thing" to the list.
The fact of the matter is ... It's fortunate only publicity hungry CNN talking head idiots parrot this phrase, because if anyone used that in conversation with me I would be forced to punch them silly. Still, you have to admire the audacity of some to overuse this phrase that is the grown up version of "I know you are but what am I".
But I digress - Fortunately this has not become a popular phrase to repeat ad nauseum. If it was I would probably have to jam a ballpoint pen in my eardrums.
I feel your pain - Just so the yahoo's of the FOFC don't flood my PM box with "You Dems always blah blah blah.." messages I'll add this Clinton gem. The world was saved some of it's serious overuse by quick witted SNL writers who made it a comedic term. Then the comedic form of the phrase was also over used.

Latest buzzwords in my office:
Migration - Nothing moves, it migrates. Our big office project the last few weeks has been the migration of an Oracle DB, and my boss recently asked us how the migration of the migration was going.
Process - Wow, I am falling victim to this one. I have processes running all the time, some of them are processing other processes, which themselves are processing other processes. We call all this processing a groups of processes. I need a vacation.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Simms
When writing, yes ("The centre of the harbour was ablaze with colour."). When speaking, we generally try to avoid it.

So, how do you avoid all the tricky British pronunciations in that sentence, then?


I have never said (nor heard anybody up here say, save the occasional Brit transplant) "al-yoo-MIN-ee-um" in my life. If I did, I'd probably ask somebody nearby to kindly beat that pronunciation out of me, eh?

Hmm - my mistake. I made the error or assuming that the one Canadian person I knew who spoke this word in my presence was representative of the whole lot. Thanks for the correction - you've done a lot for the nation in my eyes, you have.


Hoser...

And then I'm reminded again...