"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4a7af02945bbe14685627c70@news.povray.org...
> My two pet peeves in this area the frequent use of the non-words 
> "irregardless"
> and "donut" by people who really ought to know better and the mistaken
> inclusion of these terms in the word lists of numerous software spelling
> checkers. (One acts either with regard for a given factor or regardless of 
> that
> factor. "Irregardless" is a nonsense term.  Torus-shaped pastries are made 
> from
> "dough", not "do".)

"Irregardless"  Yes!  It annoys me to death.
"Donut" I find acceptable, however, as it's a shortcut, similar to "thru". 
It may even be acceptable now.

>
> Few events in history have been scarier than "nuclear" weapons coming 
> under the
> control of someone who could not pronounce the term correctly. 
> (Fortunately,
> this individual has been dispresidentified.)
Did you mean Carter or Eisenhower?

Yes, I know who you meant, but Carter was the first President that I recall 
pronouncing it incorrectly.

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4a79c14b@news.povray.org...
> clipka wrote:
>
> "could of" instead of "could have" makes smoke come out of my brain each
> time I read it.
>
...and loose/lose bugs the hell out of me too...

Maybe I'm just too uptight.  LOL

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> should have exactly one correct and unvarying spelling is far more American

In particular, far more Benjamin Franklin.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay schrieb:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
> news:4a79c14b@news.povray.org...
>> clipka wrote:
>>
>> "could of" instead of "could have" makes smoke come out of my brain each
>> time I read it.
>>
> ...and loose/lose bugs the hell out of me too...
> 
> Maybe I'm just too uptight.  LOL 

Have mercy with a German on this one :P

I'll try to improve on it, but so far I couldn't get it into my brain. 
No matter how I write it, I tend to think "man, I probably spelt it 
wrong again"...

Hmm... maybe thinking of the verb "to loosen" helps...

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> In the US, it's always "License" all the time.  In the UK and Canada, it
> depends on whether it's a noun (Licence) or verb (License).  Not sure
> about Australia, but I'd guess they follow the UK's advice.

Here's a "translation" of the GPL:
http://people.csse.uwa.edu.au/jmd/gpl_en.txt

Spot the differences with the original :)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote in message 
news:4a7b4754$1@news.povray.org...
> Have mercy with a German on this one :P
>
Actually, this is one of the few forums where people know grammar and 
spelling.  In fact, it seems like people for whom English is a second 
language often have better grammar than many native speakers (American 
anyway).  From what I've heard, American schools just aren't really teaching 
it anymore.  Yes, I'm American.

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> From what I've heard, American schools just aren't really teaching 
> it anymore.  Yes, I'm American. 

I had the fortune to have a british teacher in english class in high school. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:08:56 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:

> In fact, it seems like people for whom English is a second language
> often have better grammar than many native speakers

I've found this to be generally the case, though I often see odd 
constructions like:

"What option do you have to enter to [...]"

Instead of:

"Which option is used to [...]"

I've just been reviewing a skills assessment written in English by a 
native German speaker, and this type of construction is very common in 
German apparently.

Grammatically it's correct, of course, but it's also awkward.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:08:56 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:
> 
>> In fact, it seems like people for whom English is a second language
>> often have better grammar than many native speakers
> 
> I've found this to be generally the case, though I often see odd 
> constructions like:
> 
> "What option do you have to enter to [...]"
> 
> Instead of:
> 
> "Which option is used to [...]"
> 
> I've just been reviewing a skills assessment written in English by a 
> native German speaker, and this type of construction is very common in 
> German apparently.

It is, indeed. Although the second construction would be grammatically 
valid in German as well, it is seldom used for this purpose, as it has 
quite a strong connotation of asking about conventions, not requirements 
or possibilities - as in, "which option is *typically* used to [...]", 
or "which option is used to [...] at *this* company". Maybe quite akin 
to the progressive form, i.e. "which option is being used to [...]".

The German language only has one present tense, without distinguishing a 
simple and progressive form - maybe that's why.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:17:19 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:08:56 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:
>> 
>>> In fact, it seems like people for whom English is a second language
>>> often have better grammar than many native speakers
>> 
>> I've found this to be generally the case, though I often see odd
>> constructions like:
>> 
>> "What option do you have to enter to [...]"
>> 
>> Instead of:
>> 
>> "Which option is used to [...]"
>> 
>> I've just been reviewing a skills assessment written in English by a
>> native German speaker, and this type of construction is very common in
>> German apparently.
> 
> It is, indeed. Although the second construction would be grammatically
> valid in German as well, it is seldom used for this purpose, as it has
> quite a strong connotation of asking about conventions, not requirements
> or possibilities - as in, "which option is *typically* used to [...]",
> or "which option is used to [...] at *this* company". Maybe quite akin
> to the progressive form, i.e. "which option is being used to [...]".
> 
> The German language only has one present tense, without distinguishing a
> simple and progressive form - maybe that's why.

Makes sense.  A few members of my team at work are based in Germany (and 
are paid to be developers of technical courses - ie, formal writing is a 
requirement of the job), so I see this kind of construction quite 
frequently. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message