Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>> "Literally" is my pet hate in this regard. It's hardly ever used 
>> correctly in context, just as a general-purpose superlative. I'm 
>> literally going to kill the next person who does this in earshot. ;-D
> 
> I want to shoot every idiot who mixes up 'of' and 'have'. How the hell 
> can you confuse those??? I mean in cases like "I could of done it". WTF

*nods sadly* Yup, all too common. Misused apostrophes get my goat too. 
I'd be willing to forgive non-native speakers, but they usually get it 
right more often than the natives...

<rant>
The plural of CD is CDs !!!
</rant>

Post a reply to this message

>> "Literally" is my pet hate in this regard. It's hardly ever used 
>> correctly in context, just as a general-purpose superlative. I'm 
>> literally going to kill the next person who does this in earshot. ;-D
>
> I want to shoot every idiot who mixes up 'of' and 'have'. How the hell can 
> you confuse those??? I mean in cases like "I could of done it". WTF

Because "have" is often shortened, especially in speech but even in writing 
"i could've gone home".  To the ear it sounds like "of" instead of "have". 
So it's not surprising it gets written this way sometimes.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:41:41 -0000, Bill Pragnell  
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>>> "Literally" is my pet hate in this regard. It's hardly ever used  
>>> correctly in context, just as a general-purpose superlative. I'm  
>>> literally going to kill the next person who does this in earshot. ;-D
>>  I want to shoot every idiot who mixes up 'of' and 'have'. How the hell  
>> can you confuse those??? I mean in cases like "I could of done it". WTF

Dialects - "I could have done it" being pronounced as "I cud uv done it"  
with a small hop to "I cud ov done it" and then well you can see what  
happens. It's literally very easy to do :-P

> *nods sadly* Yup, all too common. Misused apostrophes get my goat too.  
> I'd be willing to forgive non-native speakers, but they usually get it  
> right more often than the natives...

There taut too right proply.

> <rant>
> The plural of CD is CDs !!!
> </rant>

My CDs broken

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> "Literally" is my pet hate in this regard. It's hardly ever used 
>>> correctly in context, just as a general-purpose superlative. I'm 
>>> literally going to kill the next person who does this in earshot. ;-D
>>
>> I want to shoot every idiot who mixes up 'of' and 'have'. How the hell 
>> can you confuse those??? I mean in cases like "I could of done it". WTF
> 
> Because "have" is often shortened, especially in speech but even in 
> writing "i could've gone home".  To the ear it sounds like "of" instead 
> of "have". So it's not surprising it gets written this way sometimes.

Thanks. But knowing the reasons/excuses doesn't make me stop wanting to 
shoot them.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 02:23:05 -0800, "Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:

>There's a local radio ad for Horizon Air with
>Patrick Warburton and Richard Kind that goes
>something like this...
>

LOL
My kind of game 
One where I win :)

>(wouldn't you rather be flying, etc) 
>
Hmm, no I hate flying it's always a white knuckle job. :(

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>>>> "Literally" is my pet hate in this regard. It's hardly ever used 
>>>> correctly in context, just as a general-purpose superlative. I'm 
>>>> literally going to kill the next person who does this in earshot. ;-D
>>>
>>> I want to shoot every idiot who mixes up 'of' and 'have'. How the 
>>> hell can you confuse those??? I mean in cases like "I could of done 
>>> it". WTF
>>
>> Because "have" is often shortened, especially in speech but even in 
>> writing "i could've gone home".  To the ear it sounds like "of" 
>> instead of "have". So it's not surprising it gets written this way 
>> sometimes.
> 
> Thanks. But knowing the reasons/excuses doesn't make me stop wanting to 
> shoot them.

Indeed. OTOH, if you shoot them, they'll never learn. Except maybe by 
some bizarre natural selection process.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:27:33 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>
>Indeed. OTOH, if you shoot them, they'll never learn. Except maybe by 
>some bizarre natural selection process.

But they might learn for their next life. :-)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Indeed. OTOH, if you shoot them, they'll never learn. Except maybe by 
> some bizarre natural selection process.

Sometimes I feel like thinning the herd wouldn't be that bad of an idea...

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> I have never heard of such game in France either. 

I'm not sure you actually have to recognise the game to understand the 
joke.  Me, it wasn't funny, and I'd never heard of anything similar, but 
I understood what was going on.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> > I have never heard of such game in France either. 

> I'm not sure you actually have to recognise the game to understand the 
> joke.  Me, it wasn't funny, and I'd never heard of anything similar, but 
> I understood what was going on.

  Even after reading about the game and fully understanding the strip,
IMO not one of the best ones xkcd has to offer, either.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message