"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! - Page 6 - Other Topics Forum - Discuss Pop Culture, Arts and Entertainment

Eurotrash · 12-09-2008, 08:34 PM

dissapear, dissapoint

bonii

roomate

Hollywade · 12-09-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holland3r

"Mosses' car"

Really?

daryn · 12-09-2008, 08:41 PM

i read WRT as with respect to.

**private joker** · 12-09-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumpzilla

Man, I should of written this post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNOWBALL

Am I the only one that has noticed that 'should of' and 'should have' are not the same thing?

Judging by the first reply in this thread, no.

**private joker** · 12-09-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bentonja

so the thread title error is there for comedic effect, or is it the ultimate irony?

If you really only noticed one error in the thread title, then you're one of the people we're making fun of.

Str8Fish · 12-09-2008, 08:51 PM

Are you kidding me? I don't think I've seen anyone post about cannot and can not. How hard is it to remember it's one word?

Another pet peeve: superfluous words. For example, "In order to study" is the same as "To study".

27offsuit · 12-09-2008, 09:03 PM

Twice within the last couple weeks on 2P2, people said 'eluded to' when they meant 'alluded to', which goes beyond grammar and into the ignorant realm.
One guy was called out and he blew a gasket on the nit.

Personally, I don't think most people fully realize how utterly stupid they sound/look butchering the most simple words.

Worst infraction I've ever seen:
A new comptroller at my old office sent out her first big, office-wide email and in it she mentioned the 'principles' of the company at least a half dozen times, when she actually meant the 'principals' because she was referring to all the bigwigs she had just sent this email to.
I felt so bad I sent her a 'just to let you know...' email and she was pretty bummed.

Hollywade · 12-09-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 27offsuit

Worst infraction I've ever seen:
A new comptroller at my old office sent out her first big, office-wide email and in it she mentioned the 'principles' of the company at least a half dozen times, when she actually meant the 'principals' because she was referring to all the bigwigs she had just sent this email to.
I felt so bad I sent her a 'just to let you know...' email and she was pretty bummed.

If principle/principal is the worst offense you have seen, then you have not seen much. That is way more obscure than two/too/to, there/their/they're, your/you're, etc.

I'm a nit and certainly would have noticed it, but I have seen much worse.

RunDownHouse · 12-09-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hey_Porter

I have always understood the phrase "with regards to" (as opposed to "regarding") to be improper in the sense that less is usually more in composition, so it tilts me pretty hard that "WRT" is pretty widespread on here and apparently used quite frequently in some fields.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daryn

i read WRT as with respect to.

I'm with daryn. That's how I read it, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuq

It's/its is so goddamned easy that I think that's the main reason it bothers me. So easy.

This makes me a sad panda.

garcia1000 · 12-09-2008, 09:18 PM

Sometimes people will say "I will revert to you later" when they mean that they will study something and then give me a response later. I think that is not a good usage.

**private joker** · 12-09-2008, 09:18 PM

The girl I am dating is in a Master's program and studying for finals this week. I sent her a text yesterday that ended with "Don't study too hard."

She wrote back: "Trying not too! Hope your having a good day"

Not correcting her is one of the most difficult parts of being a considerate boyfriend...

CrazyEyez · 12-09-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowden719

I could care less is usually sarcasm imo.

I've seen this posted before. I can't recall a single instance where that phrase would even make sense as sarcasm when it was used. And I'm a person who thinks everything is sarcastic.

Claunchy · 12-09-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuq

It's/its is so goddamned easy that I think that's the main reason it bothers me. So easy.

Anyway, I'm sure we grammar nerds all agree that whenever we're debating something, and we see someone with an opposite viewpoint make the really simple your/you're or their/there mistake, we smugly conclude that we are correct because we're not as stupid as they are.

fyp

27offsuit · 12-09-2008, 09:23 PM

Most simple, yet most unprofessional grammatical errors imo:

There/Their/They're and Your/You're

There - A place. There it is.

Their - Possesive. It's theirs. Not yours.

They're - They are. Period.

Your - Possesive. It's yours. Whatever it is.

You're - You are. Period.

How hard is this stuff? Really.

**private joker** · 12-09-2008, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyEyez

I've seen this posted before. I can't recall a single instance where that phrase would even make sense as sarcasm when it was used. And I'm a person who thinks everything is sarcastic.

ZOMG yes. WTF do they even mean it's sarcastic? How? That's the worst excuse for misusing a phrase I've ever seen. People, it's "couldn't care less." 100% that's correct, and there's no situation where "could care less" is anything but retarded.

I mean I can imagine a spot where you're, like, discussing politics with someone and trying to explain your disproportionate enthusiasm for a ballot measure. So you say "Well, I guess I could care less about Prop 8, and just be apathetic like everyone else, but the fact is I'm passionate about it so I care very deeply." That makes literal sense, but nobody uses it that way, and since everyone uses it when they mean they don't give a sh*t about something, then it always needs to be "I couldn't care less about who won the Kings game last night. Hockey is boring."