These should be bannable offenses.
 

:mad:

1. "Alot" is *NOT* a word!!!! Two words, people. TWO words. "A lot."
2. "Your going to lose." is WRONG!!! It is "you're."

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT????? ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

:mad:


Carry on. I just have to vent that frustration every few months.

I'll support this as long as we can add

3. It's "Xbox," not "X-Box"

to the list. :D

It's "loose" not "lose".

4. You weren't "dominate", you were "dominant."

Alot of people use those words. Your being harsh. I am going to play my X-Box now.

elitists

Damn, beat me to it!

What a looser you are.

;)

"It's nuc-u-lar, Lisa, nuc-u-lar." Irregardless of what the dictionary says.

5. "Definitely." NOT "definately" or "definetly."

Literally != very

SD... Your write! (I notice this alot...)

Actually what annoys me are when grown adults use the substitution of numbers and single letters 4 words. C what I mean?

"Irregardless" is not a word.

All those, while annoying, are not as bad as...

u and r.

Those are letters. Not words.

edit: Got beat to it. But adults, children, I don't care. No one should ever use such idiocy. Ever.

Everybody take a deep breath and relax.

You might want to look up when you hear that whooshing sound, Bucc.

Skydog makes some good point's.

Sometimes embedded jokes are missed. :D

SkyDog, you could of warned us first. That's to mean. We need better rule's.

What QuickSand said!

Fixed!

It's Pictures Please... okay, thank you.

not pix plz k thx


GRRR

I don't know why, but a lot of people even in an office setting spell coming with two "M's", so it looks like this ... "comming," talk about annoying.

I often wonder if the "your"/"you're" error and the "their"/"there"/"they're" errors don't reflect on cognitive processing preferences to a degree. I've understood the differences since I was young, but even now I often mistype them. I think I "hear" words instead of "see" words when I write, and that leads me somehow to simply type the wrong word frequently.

For my entire adult life, whenever I send something important out, I make one extra editing pass and look specifically for these errors. It has nothing to do with my not knowing the rule, I just consistently screw them up when I type.

Interesting, I generally "see" words when they are spoken. But not like those thought balloons.

I actually like that. Irregardless [looks around the room approvingly], it's funny that it would be YOU that would criticize dudespeak.

But alot of these poeple use those word Skydog. Your just being a poop-head.

Wow. Twice in one thread.

oh come off it

ax me know kweshuns en I tel yous no lyes

I do this too. I know the rules regarding their/there, your/you're,to/too, and similarly its/it's. I know them to the point that it annoys me when I note others misusing them. That notwithstanding, I often read my posts or other writings, and find that I have misused those very words.

I do agree with you I apparently hear those words instead of actually seeing exactly what I have typed.

People who use "it's not funny" for emphasis.

"I'm so thirsty, it's not even funny".

Great. So at what level of thirst would the humor kick in, then?

It's not "FOF2", it's "EA Sports Front Office Football"!!!

Argh!!!!!!!!!

The "If you will" comment at the end of a statement has always bothered me. If you will what?

It's not "Dat boy run so good." It's: "That young man runs very well."

1 - "Boyz" is not a word.

2 - See 1.

The Run and Shoot should be a bannable offense. You don't see much of it anymore. Or is it, "any more"?

At a level higher than their current level of thirst, obviously. Duh.

Anyone else besides me initially read the title as "These should be bananable offenses."?

i lOvE iT wHeN pEoPlE tYpE a MeSsAgE wItH aLtErNaTiNg CaPiTaL lEtTeRz & uSe z'S iNsTeAd oF s'S iN wOrDz!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless

It's "loose not "lose." The period goes inside the quote mark, big guy.

that's not necessarily true.

Alot of your wrong.

No, see, doesn't it imply that the humor comes at a level below the current level? And that the thirst has since become so great that the humor has now been lost?

I can't be the only one who wonders about these things.

No it doesn't. Only the punctuation that applies directly to the passage being quoted goes inside the quotes. In this case, "lose" is not a complete sentence and so it doesn't need a period.

Interesting... I never learned Canadian :)

You forgot to add the "eh".

This is making my English teacher head hurt.

You see, I was referring to a football offense instead of a grammatical error. :)

Panties

What y'all said.

Of late, I've been seeing more and more of "board" when referring being bored. And it frightens me.

You're/your, would have/of and usage of "u", "ur", "c", "2" are some of my biggest pet peeves.

Don't worry, if people do these grammatical mistakes long enough, we'll simply change the dictionary to accomodate their idoicy.

By the way...not sure if it has been added to the dictionary, but Athleticism wasn't a word 20 years ago - it's athletic ability. It took a bunch of stupid broadcasters to invent that gem.


Note: I don't condemn spelling errors - mostly because I can't spell.

Whilst I agree with the comments above, if people had limited their use of vocabulary to what is in the dictionary, we would all be using ye olde english just now.

Alot of people think X-Box cost alot of

Agreed (and nicely phrased I might add), but at this point in the evolution of our language, we shouldn't be inventing new parts of speach for a word that has been around for years (i.e. disrespecting - still not sure how this noun became a verb). The grammarians that determine what belongs in a dictionary have become lenient. With the exception of new words that relate to technology the dictionary should not be expanding (especially to accomodate pop culture).

One more note: the words I've used as examples may still not be in the dictionary (I don't sit down and read the dictionary and I haven't attempted to look them up - I just located every other word over 6 letters to make sure they were spelled correctly in this post), but I wouldn't be surprised if they are added soon.

Actually, while this was almost certainly a joke, it lands pretty close to the truth.

In proper British English, the convention is to place only the punctuation relevant to that being quited inside the quotation marks. So, in that context, it is appropriate to punctuate the word that you are using like "this".

However, in American English, we have adopted the reverese convention, and it is considered appropriate, even preferred (though I have no doubt one could find conflicting sources) to place all punctuation inside the quotes except for very specific denotative situations. So, in American English, it is more appropriate to use your list of "words," "expressions," or "the rest" with their adjoining punctuation -- including both commas and sentence-enders, inside the quotes.

proper British:
Did you name your dogs "Spot", "Fido", and "Butch?"

proper American:
Did you name your dogs "Spot," "Fido," and "Butch?"

(Basically the only circumstance when Americans are to place the punctuation outside the quotes is when we have something very denotative about the material being quoted -- and the inclusion of punctuation could itself be misleading. It's a very useful rule for Americans to *always* put punctiation inside the quotes, period. Most conventional writing will never result in an error this way, period.


As for Candians -- for the most part, they tend to follow British conventions (the -re and -our spellings being a well-known example) when the two diverge. I don't know for sure... but it's possible that Maple Leafs (sorry) is earnestly sharing his proper Canadian schooling with us Yanks above, but is inadvertently suggesting we betray the correct convention for use in the States.

One small caveat to the above, in British English you are supposed to include the final punctuation mark of a sentance within the quotes.

eg

SkyDog said "where are my patriotic undies?"

You did that on purpose, didn't you?

Like Daedalus, the use of would of, could of, and should of is a pet peeve of mine. For those who aren't aware, it should be would have, could have, and should have. I'm assuming the would of is a mistake caused by the contraction of would have into would've. I'm not enough of a grammar nazi to know if would've is a proper contraction of would have. I'm assuming so, but perhaps others could shed some light.

Oh and another one that I find irritating - moot vs. mute. If a point is irrelevant, it is a moot point. It rhymes with boot (or about if your Canadian;)) not with cute. Mute means to be unable to speak. It has nothing to do with whether a point is relevant or not.


Oh, and since we're on the subject, and since I'm too lazy to search for it, I would kindly request QS posting the rules for apostrophes. I constantly second guess myself as a result of him raising my awareness. I believe I probably used them correctly most of the time when I wasn't thinkng about them, but now I'm quite sure I use them incorrectly as a result of overthinking. Contractions vs. possession seems to be my biggest area of uncertainty.

Not "Electronic Arts' Sports' Front Office Football"?


What annoys me is that people refer to football players or baseball players when they say track-and-field players. I know, it's probably allowed by dictionairy, but still annoys me.

Actually it is "allot"...
 

;)
a lot is talking about a specific lot of property or somehting similiar....allot is the correct spelling for alot....

No it isn't.

:confused:

I also have A LOT of gribes.

The number of things in this thread that I simply don't understand continues to grow.

im so board

And now the airing of the grievances. I've got a lot of problems with you people.

I got 99 problems but a grammatical error ain't one.

Jay Z is phat.

wurd like son

u r teh suq

Jay Z is a soft sissy sucka, fool. Give props to Ice M.F. T, from back in nine-trizay. A short excerpt from the original:

u suq teh coq

I'm an editor. This is the funniest thread EVER. Thanks, everybody!

From the Barron's "Guide to Correct Grammar":

"Periods and commas are always placed inside end quotation marks. ... Colons and semicolons are always placed outside end quotation marks. Other marks are placed where they logically belong -- within the qutation if they punctuate the quotation, outside the quotation if they punctuate the sentence of which the quotation is a part."

I think the problem is a matter of metric conversion. I think the British and Canadians only use six-tenths of American grammar. Eh?

Calm down or your going to end up losing alot of sleep over this. ;)

OK you grammer queens, I have a question for you all. I will use one of Quicksand's sentences as a demonstrative aid.


Every person in my office except me feals that the comma after Fido in the above sentence is either improper or not necessary. I grew up placing the comma before AND as Quiksand did in his list. However, I have been beaten into mental submission, and now I do not include it when writing official documents. If one of the secretaries here got a hold of this sentence, she would change it to :



Who is correct? Am I making any Sense? Is it 5 O'Clock yet?

I believe this is another one that splits along British English and American English lines. If I'm not mistaken, grammatically speaking it is more proper to include the comma after the second item, but the convention in America is to omit it. However, it is much more common to see the second comma in British English.

I'm not 100% certain on this one, however, and would be interested to hear from someone who knows more.

iirc, either way is correct...

it's been a long time since grammar school, however.

Can we add pathetic attempts at Fritzing to the list of bannable offenses?

This comma before the "and" baffled me a lot when I started communicating a bit more in English. See, in French, there is not comma before the word "et" (the translation for "and"). For example, a listing similar to the sentence above in French would be "Spot Fido et Butch" and when I started writing (and readin) more and more in English, I started seeing it with a comma, almost exclusively with a comma before the "and"... So much so that I started writing it like that... Now to hear that it's probably more the British way of doing, I'm not sure I'd say that, since most of my reading, where I've seen this rule, has been on American books, magazines, and such...

FM

To answer your question (thanks to English Composition One), a list greater than two requires commas after every item listed except the final item, so QuikSand is correct.

"I would like to give thanks to my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

Use the comma.

Okay, the "c" in QuikSand has been done. The other two were on purpose, right? Right???

Yep. In fact, I almost mistakenly typed it that way earlier today. :)

i feal you are incorrect

Do not use the comma. Like the second space after a period, it's going the way of the dodo. In ten years no one will use them. Get a jump on the future.

I agree that using the comma is better, and I always try to do in my writing, but I think it is common to see it omitted from American English, so much so that many people mistakenly think it is wrong to put it there. It's extremely common to see it omitted in US media, for example.

Just one quick search on CNN, for example, turns up this:

"Their next four years are hidden from us, but they are not hidden from you," Graham said. "You know the challenges and opportunities they will face. Give them a clear mind, a warm heart, calmness in the midst of turmoil, reassurance in times of discouragement and your presence always."
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...day/index.html

I'm not holding up CNN as a bastion of good writing, mind you, and the lack of a comma, as in your example, technically makes the writing ambigous, but I think American readers accept the comma not being there because it is so often omitted in the popular press.

I would submit that a large number of Americans are not very good readers.

As always, there are probably two schools of thought: British/Canadian (also known as "correct") and American (also known as "easy"). I've always been taught not to use the comma after the final item, unless the final item could stand on its own as a sentence.

e.g. The Leafs beat the Wings, Habs and Flyers.

e.g. The Leafs beat the Wings, they beat the Habs, and they destroyed the Flyers.

However, realistically most of these debates actually fall under the subject of "house style" -- whatever publication/company you're writing for probably has a style guide that covers how they want it done.

I don't recall the official rule on the comma before and in a list. I know in literary writing the comma is preferred, but I believe it may be required. Nost sure about it being option.

Godzilla, the reason the comma is absent in the CNN copy is that Associated Press writing style for journalists calls for no comma in that situation. The only exception is when punctuation is required in a lengthy list to clarify when one item ends and the next begins. And in that case, AP Style calls for using a semicolon to separate items rather than a comma. By and large, AP Style favors minimal punctuation and indeed differs from more "literary" grammar.

Interesting and very helpful. Thanks. I didn't realize the AP had their own style guide.

Are you going to cover that drivel on your next album?

Geez. How is this thread still on the front page and going strong?

More importantly, how is it possible that there hasn't been a lame "These should be banana offenses" parody thread?

Back to the subject of bad grammer and spelling, I saw my 12yo niece typing a message on a Disney forum over the weekend and she actually erased 'you' and replaced it with 'u'. I hated to be the grammer police by pointing that one out but she ignored me anyway. And her mother is a school teacher!!! :rolleyes: :mad:

I dislike the use of the word "physicality". What the hell is that?

AP style manual says no comma, AMA style manual (which I use) says yes to the comma. Not sure about other style manuals.