If "Think Different" was "Think: Different", then it would have been "Think: Different." Occam's razor and all that. imo

For some reason "wouldn't of" tilts me a hundred times worse than any of the other ones.

I assume you meant when written incorrectly like that. It's a mistaken phonetic writing of a correctly spoken phrase, which is actually "wouldn't've" as a perfectly fine contraction for "would not have". There is no "of" in the phrase. Similarly, "would've" "should've" "could've" etc. are all perfectly correct contractions for -"have".

I think that often people grow up hearing it spoken correctly and then make a wrong assumption about what is actually being said, and so abortions like "wouldn't of" enter the written language. You'll even find some professionals writing it that way now, it's too late to fix it.

Question! Which should it be:

"He waited for compound returns to work its magic."

"He waited for compound returns to work their magic."

Are you leveling and trying to tilt me further? LOL. Yes, I realize they are confused. That's the part that is tilting. I realize that what they should be writing would be correct, if they were writing it correctly.

It's like I told you that it tilts me when people spell the word definately and you're telling me that they are trying to spell definitely, which is an actual word. Well no **** man!

Haha I thought the same thing about the new old guy post. Reminded me of that "State the Obvious Man" snl skit.

Is the phrase " What are the thoughts on blank " proper English?

I used something like " What are the thoughts on dogs peeing in other peoples yards? "

And someone corrected me saying it's " What are your thoughts on dogs peeing in other peoples yards? "

The context was a general question asked on twitter/facebook.

Hahaha funny ****. I started replying to that then naaah haha

Stim - I've always said " your thoughts."

I mean if you want to be nitty Like that then you're just a knob. There's nothing that wrong with how you worded it, in that context. 'your' sounds better though. I mean it might be more common to use 'people's thoughts' but whatever.

Acht I don't know, can't think of why your original question would be wrong, but I'd probably correct a student for the sake of practising possessives, and make them use 'your'.

Unnecessary wankiness by an amateur nazi iyam.

The case of the pronoun needs to agree with the noun.

Do they?

Compound returns = singular or plural?

Its/their: which one agrees with the noun?

There are some odd idiomatic uses in English where an apparently plural noun takes a verb in the singular: "Mathematics is a difficult subject." "That's all semantics." I can see no reason why "returns"--compound or otherwise--would ever be thought of as singular.

It's correct, I suppose, but isn't standard and sticks out to me as a statement by a non-native speaker. It's also unclear since the reader doesn't know whose thoughts you want. If you ask me "What are the thoughts on gay marriage?" I'm not completely sure if you want my opinion, you're looking for a summary of views on each side or you want to know how much support it has where I live.

Using to be as the verb, go with your/their thoughts. Even better, use think as the verb: "What do you think of..."

But neither maths nor semantics are plural nouns.

The actual error being made isn't as obvious to everyone as you make out. There is nothing misspelled about "wouldn't of", it's a usage error. There are also real writers today who will argue with you that using the preposition "of" in that phrase instead of the correct "have" (-'ve) is still acceptable grammar (a prepositional phrase using whatever verb follows) and that it has become a regional idiom in parts of the country, even when written. It tilts the **** out of me too, but I was just trying to give a little background on it. I'm sorry you felt my post was just pedantic and obvious, but perhaps you and privatejoker haven't really thought about that usage. I've seen a couple of essays on it by professional writers, which is where that insight came from. I also argued with one on another board when he was defending his use of it in published works.

We also have to recognize that "correctness" in English is defined over time by actual usage that works for effective communication, not by arbitrary a priori rules. This is a case where something is slowly becoming a little less incorrect in some areas, but may or may not ever make it to full acceptance.

The best thing about this thread is the link to this site.

I'm sorry, but which "professionals" and "real writers" are using the formulation "wouldn't of" exactly? I can see it being used in dialogue to represent the speech of a semi-literate person, likewise used to represent that person's writing, but I don't think this formulation is in danger of ever being accepted as actually correct on any level.

We do have a priori rules in this case, and they aren't arbitrary. This isn't comparable to, say, a neologism or variation on a word gaining traction. Yes, languages are fluid to a certain extent, but they function according to certain basic premises, and the use of "wouldnt of" contradicts one of the most basic, i.e. that a complete sentence needs a verb.

Yes!

New old guy - please post links to where this 'professional' can be ridiculed.

Not exactly. It's removing the auxiliary verb required to give the structure its aspect. There will still be a verb after 'of'. (the main verb of course)

This is ****ing extremely tilting. 'Pro' writers arguing this is not wrong.. **** me.

Here's an example:
http://www.forstchen.com/

This author uses the phrase throughout his bestselling book via multiple well-educated characters. I emailed him directly about 2 years ago because it was so irritating. My email:

I no longer have his response to me but he did defend it, basically saying that where he lives it is pretty standard usage. He believed it to be correct, obviously. And his editors allowed it on a major print label.

There is another example I haven't located at the moment where a college professor wrote an opinion piece about poker legislation and the gambling/chance debate that was published on a major web site (not a poker news site), and I wrote to him about it too. He too defended it.

It's shocking that a novel with an introduction by Newt Gingrich would contain any sort of intellectual error.

Also, where does he live, Wrongwordistan? Heyo!

North Carolina.

Lol (and I'm from NC)

Yeah but his bio (click the image on the first page) says he is the author of 40 books. He is also a Ph.D. and working professor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Forstchen

Unbelievable that he uses the phrase we're discussing.

He's an unbelievable tool. There's absolutely nothing defendable about it.