> -  The progressive tense of the verb to die is dying, not "dieing". The
> same goes for to lie -> lying.

There's a native English guy who *teaches* English to a class here (a friend 
of mine goes to it) and he writes "tryed"!  I can understand a non-native 
making that mistake when learning English, but there's no excuse for a 
native to do that, and especially not if he is teaching English.

> - I think some people write "they're" instead of "there" on purpose, just
> to annoy people.

I do it sometimes purely because I'm typing too fast and just write out the 
sounds that are going around in my head! Quite often I put things like "my" 
instead of "by" because I'm just not concentrating (it's not like I don't 
know the difference between "my" and "by"!).

> - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing", they
> are actually saying "I know something".

I think a lot of people do actually realise that *technically* it means the 
opposite of common understanding, but if you point it out to them you'll be 
labelled as a geeky nitpicker :-)

Post a reply to this message

> - Sentences that end with a question mark despite not being questions.

Surely adding a question mark makes them into a question? :-)

> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a 
> retard like me can understand it!)

When I was younger I was sure that "its" was actually spelt "it's".  My 
logic was:

The hand of the boy --> The boy's hand
The head of the fat guy --> The fat guy's head
The front of it --> It(')s front

But like you say, there are only a few rules so it's not hard to remember.

Post a reply to this message

>> This in itself is less bad than my mum's pathology of repeating words 
>> to differentiate them. "This is the total. Well, I mean, it's not the 
>> *total* total, but it's the total." WTF?
> 
> My favorite was "The car wasn't just totaled. It was completely totaled!"

I saw this cat the other day, and it was really ugly! Well, I mean, it 
wasn't ugly ugly, but it was pretty ugly.

WTF?

>> I haven't come across either of these mistakes myself...
> 
> I think you get it more in places people tend to use english less.

Probably.

Post a reply to this message

>> My favorite was "The car wasn't just totaled. It was completely totaled!"
>
> I saw this cat the other day, and it was really ugly! Well, I mean, it 
> wasn't ugly ugly, but it was pretty ugly.
>
> WTF?

But you understand the difference if someone had written instead:

> I saw this cat the other day, and it was really ugly! Well, I mean, this 
> wasn't pretty ugly, this was ugly ugly.

Those sentences where the write repeats the word but with some 
clarification, actually help the reader to understand the situation:

Compare:

1) I totaled the car!

2) I totaled the car, I mean it is completely totaled!

3) I totaled the car, I mean it is only *just* totaled.

With 1) the reader is left wondering how badly the car is damaged, ok we 
know it's not driveable and probably beyond repair, but is that because you 
crashed into a wall and the wheels and bodywork are all bent, or is it 
because it was crushed by rolling over 10 times or between two trucks?  With 
2) you get some further information, that the situation is more towards the 
totally crushed rather than bent wheels end of the scale.  With 3) you get 
the further information that the car is more towards the bent-wheels end of 
the scale.

Words like "ugly" and "totaled" are not digital yes-no words, you can always 
clarify them.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing", they
> > are actually saying "I know something".

> I think a lot of people do actually realise that *technically* it means the 
> opposite of common understanding, but if you point it out to them you'll be 
> labelled as a geeky nitpicker :-)

  It becomes interesting with triple negatives. Quoting Eminem:

- "I don't owe nobody in my family nothing."
- "I don't believe nobody can not swear."

  What do these mean *technically* speaking, if we interpret them fully
accurately?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > Invisible wrote:
> >> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a
> >> retard like me can understand it!)
> > 
> > http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html

> http://angryflower.com/plural.gif

  Sin'ce th'e ap'postro'phe is s'o popul'ar, may'be we sho'uld sta'rt add'ing
it t'o ever'y sing'le w'ord?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing",
> they
> are actually saying "I know something".

That one's at least understandable because, in many languages, a
double-negative like that is really just "extra" negative.  They don't
use a logical "not".


> 
> --
>                                                           - Warp


...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message 
news:8090A3F87573436295D10AAFD6BA5CE9@HomePC...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
>> - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing",
>> they
>> are actually saying "I know something".
>
> That one's at least understandable because, in many languages, a
> double-negative like that is really just "extra" negative.  They don't
> use a logical "not".

Afrikaans, for example, requires a double negative. Without both, the 
sentence is gramatically incorrect

eg "Ek het nie die man gesien nie"
Lit: "I have not the man seen not"

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Things that irritate me:
> 
> - email messages that contain no punctuation of any kind just several 
> sentences strung together presumably youre supposed to figure out 
> sentence boundaries from context or something its really quite 
> irritating though
> 

I just received the following text in an email message and thought about 
your post:

<snip>
K kool just wanted to find out thanks well i would be getting the one 
you sent me
</snip>

Nice, huh?  It took me a few rereads to figure out what they meant, even 
knowing the context of the message.  :(

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:31:18 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> - People who write "i.e." when they actually mean "e.g."

Depending on how you read the sentence, the two can be interchangeable.

I typically read "i.e." as "that is", and "e.g." as "for example".

i.e. is "id est", meaning "that is" or "that is to say".

e.g. is "exempli gratia", meaning "for the sake of example".

Jim

Post a reply to this message