![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmail com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay schrieb:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmail com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymous org> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |