ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: bomb on December 10, 2010, 12:29:53 pm
-
IT'S 'SHOULD HAVE' NOT 'SHOULD OF'
Should of doesn't make sense, I don't even know how 'should of' started - it's ridiculous that people don't take a moment to think whether what they're saying makes sense.
-
who says 'should of' lol?
-
They are saying should've, not should of. So technically correct. :)
-
This was a question on the grade 3 AIMS test.
-
IT'S 'SHOULD HAVE' NOT 'SHOULD OF'
Should of doesn't make sense, I don't even know how 'should of' started - it's ridiculous that people don't take a moment to think whether what they're saying makes sense.
Yes, thank you! Too many people do this.
-
They are saying should've, not should of. So technically correct. :)
Nope, they are saying should OF, and WRITING should OF.
who says 'should of' lol?
Like every 2nd person I know :P
This was a question on the grade 3 AIMS test.
Please tell me something like 99% of people got it right :P
-
I agree, especially in writing. I assume that when people are talking they are saying 'should've' and not 'should of'. I'm optimistic like that.
-
I agree, especially in writing. I assume that when people are talking they are saying 'should've' and not 'should of'. I'm optimistic like that.
Yet they pronounce it 'should'ov', doesn't that make you suspicious? :P
-
shooduv when you say it
can be interpreted either way
-
the unstressed vowel of 'ave' is just assimilating to the vowel sound in should. if you say "should've" slowly you'll see how the tongue needs to change position for the second vowel sound.
you get it too in phrases like n o'clock. the 'o' isn't pronounced like the queen would say it, and in 'bucket of chips' where the 'of' becomes 'u'.
isn't this normal enough in running speech?
of course people who *write* it as "should of" ought to be shot, then revived, then shot again! :knuppel2:
but it's an example of how the sounds can change the spelling.
-
shooduv when you say it
can be interpreted either way
Same people spell it 'should of' so I know they're saying 'should of' :P
-
While we're on this... It irks me when people use apostrophes to denote plurality. Oh, and using question marks when there is no question or when it instead is a request.
I hate raising these things because most people on this forum including me have some sort of grammatical deficiency, but I still think it's necessary to point out.
-
LOL my english teacher wrote this on the board at least once every fortnight. It got quite annoying after a while, he also tried getting us to perfect the use of apostrophes, contractions and the use of effect and affect.
-
I hate when people use the wrong your/you're and they're/their/there. Is it really that difficult?
-
the unstressed vowel of 'ave' is just assimilating to the vowel sound in should. if you say "should've" slowly you'll see how the tongue needs to change position for the second vowel sound.
you get it too in phrases like n o'clock. the 'o' isn't pronounced like the queen would say it, and in 'bucket of chips' where the 'of' becomes 'u'.
isn't this normal enough in running speech?
of course people who *write* it as "should of" ought to be shot, then revived, then shot again! :knuppel2:
but it's an example of how the sounds can change the spelling.
At a glance your avatar looks like a giant slug lol
-
While we're on this... It irks me when people use apostrophes to denote plurality. Oh, and using question marks when there is no question or when it instead is a request.
I hate raising these things because most people on this forum including me have some sort of grammatical deficiency, but I still think it's necessary to point out.
It's fine on forums, but in letters/essays it is unacceptable.
I hate when people use the wrong your/you're and they're/their/there. Is it really that difficult?
It really isn't :P
-
It is like when people say 'come to me house'
They still mean 'my'. It is fine in spoken language. Not so much in written prose though.
Edit: And assimilation occurs all the time. You will be hard pressed to find someone who actually says 'prime minister' rather than 'pryminister'.
-
you're/your is my favourite spelling mishap
-
It annoys me a bit too
Same with people incorrectly using apostrophes, saying "pacifically" instead of specifically and "brang" instead of brought and the bought/brought mistake.
-
BRANG pisses me off every time lol.
-
This, and the difference between affect and effect are the only two things I truly care about.
-
Hahaha I've never heard someone use "pacifically" but that's pretty bad. I forgot a few others. "More closer", "more safer", etc. are inexcusable. And here's one that is entrenched in our language: using "there's" instead of "there are" when there is a plural proceeding. For example, "there's two chairs" and "there's many tables". I think about 98% do this - politicians; English teachers; media personalities. So, look out everyone, here's your chance to silently change your ways or else risk frustrating me to the point of explosion.
-
This, and the difference between affect and effect are the only two things I truly care about.
Haha nice Marshall quote ;D
-
My old English teacher doesn't know the difference between affect and effect.... I'm not joking either!
-
This, and the difference between affect and effect are the only two things I truly care about.
Oh, this one occasionally confuses me. Not often, but sometimes. If I ever misuse it, crack the shits at me :)
As a side note, a funny thought occurred to me: everyone on this thread is trembling because of the need to ensure their grammar is near-perfect when posting. Wouldn't want to have a major slip-up :P
-
"irregardless"
:tickedoff:
-
"irregardless"
:tickedoff:
+1.
Someone called me a "grammar nazi."
-
"irregardless"
:tickedoff:
+1.
Someone called me a "grammar nazi."
(http://i40.tinypic.com/2vl1ssh.gi)
dyaner, join us.
-
"irregardless"
:tickedoff:
+1.
Someone called me a "grammar nazi."
(http://i40.tinypic.com/2vl1ssh.gi)
dyaner, join us.
Best achievement ever. I accept.
-
(http://imgur.com/CYzUX.jpg)
-
Loads of otherwise intelligent people write "acquiesce to"
-
Loads of otherwise intelligent people write "acquiesce to"
I am disinclined to acquiesce this request.
-
A blogger I used to read proposed this manifesto:
Flogging Offences
* Use of the Grocer's Apostrophe;
* Starting paragraphs in a newspaper article with the word "And". Especially if you are a politician;
* Blaming the weapon, rather than the person wielding it;
* Driving in the middle lane of a busy motorway without good cause;
* Advocating Socialism as a means for organising the relationships between communities larger than a small farm;
* Confusing correlation with causation;
Flogging Offences. Such flogging to be administered on the steps of the perpetrator's club
This is separate category of crime, where it is important that a visible example is set.
* Advocating Socialism for communities larger than a small farm, when one is in a position of power;
* Advocating Creationism when one ought to know better;
* Inviting, on live television, an evidently distressed relative to advocate a ban on whatever it was that killed the recently deceased person in question;
* Confusing "equality of outcome" with "equality of opportunity".
Hanging Offences.
Let's not beat about the bush: We have to make a stand and stop this dangerous nonsense.
* Preferring "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity";
* Advocating Creationism when one is in charge of educational policy or children or both;
* Moral Equivalence;
* Unwarranted use of the split infinitive.
-
Loads of otherwise intelligent people write "acquiesce to"
what's wrong with "acquiesce to"? if you can use "in" with it, why not to?
a quick search shows D. H. Lawrence and Daniel Defoe using "to", and
even some literary examples of "with".
-
I hate it when people mix up the English used between the US and Australia. Like saying "average joe" and "enrollment" instead of "enrolment". But I suppose its fine in a forum like this. In fact I encourage poor grammar/spelling as this eases tensions and creates a calmer, laid back forum environment. :)
-
I hate it when people mix up the English used between the US and Australia. Like saying "average joe" and "enrollment" instead of "enrolment". But I suppose its fine in a forum like this. In fact I encourage poor grammar/spelling as this eases tensions and creates a calmer, laid back forum environment. :)
never encouraged! to ease tensions one would use internet slang/informal syntax - and the like, not poor spelling.. this should never be encouraged!!!! (lots of people, if not most have spell-check these days anyways)
-
Firefox's spell check is lovely.
-
A blogger I used to read proposed this manifesto:
Flogging Offences
* Use of the Grocer's Apostrophe;
* Starting paragraphs in a newspaper article with the word "And". Especially if you are a politician;
* Blaming the weapon, rather than the person wielding it;
* Driving in the middle lane of a busy motorway without good cause;
* Advocating Socialism as a means for organising the relationships between communities larger than a small farm;
* Confusing correlation with causation;
Flogging Offences. Such flogging to be administered on the steps of the perpetrator's club
This is separate category of crime, where it is important that a visible example is set.
* Advocating Socialism for communities larger than a small farm, when one is in a position of power;
* Advocating Creationism when one ought to know better;
* Inviting, on live television, an evidently distressed relative to advocate a ban on whatever it was that killed the recently deceased person in question;
* Confusing "equality of outcome" with "equality of opportunity".
Hanging Offences.
Let's not beat about the bush: We have to make a stand and stop this dangerous nonsense.
* Preferring "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity";
* Advocating Creationism when one is in charge of educational policy or children or both;
* Moral Equivalence;
* Unwarranted use of the split infinitive.
Bah! The split infinitive is fine, there is nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English because you physically can. This isn't Latin! :P
-
I hate it when people mix up the English used between the US and Australia. Like saying "average joe" and "enrollment" instead of "enrolment". But I suppose its fine in a forum like this. In fact I encourage poor grammar/spelling as this eases tensions and creates a calmer, laid back forum environment. :)
Oh yes same! I don't like when people spell words with z when it's meant to be s
-
Loads of otherwise intelligent people write "acquiesce to"
what's wrong with "acquiesce to"? if you can use "in" with it, why not to?
a quick search shows D. H. Lawrence and Daniel Defoe using "to", and
even some literary examples of "with".
It's intransitive, so technically incorrect. However that usage has become so prevalent that the grammar authorities seem to have acquiesced in permitting it.
Curiously, how are you able to do a quick search through the writings of D. H. Lawrence and Daniel Defoe?
-
who says 'should of' lol?
oops :(
-
"yous" annoys me too
-
Loads of otherwise intelligent people write "acquiesce to"
what's wrong with "acquiesce to"? if you can use "in" with it, why not to?
a quick search shows D. H. Lawrence and Daniel Defoe using "to", and
even some literary examples of "with".
It's intransitive, so technically incorrect. However that usage has become so prevalent that the grammar authorities seem to have acquiesced in permitting it.
Curiously, how are you able to do a quick search through the writings of D. H. Lawrence and Daniel Defoe?
I don't know the word haha but intransitive means it cannot take any objects. :P
-
It's intransitive, so technically incorrect. However that usage has become so prevalent that the grammar authorities seem to have acquiesced in permitting it.
Curiously, how are you able to do a quick search through the writings of D. H. Lawrence and Daniel Defoe?
hmm, not sure its intransitivity is an obstacle. you can bow, or bow to someone. the prepositional phrase still works with the intransitive verb.
as for searching, i just google (site:gutenberg.org search string). i use it mostly with thelatinlibrary.com, but gutenberg for english usage.
"yous" annoys me too
i use youse all the time when parsing so i don't have to write (2nd pl.) all the time, but spell it with an e.
-
The split infinitive is fine, there is nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English because you physically can.
You are dead to me :P
-
In spoken English, 'yous' is a great word :)
-
In spoken English, 'yous' is a great word :)
I just say 'you two' or 'you guys' to try and remain grammatically correct.
(and more importantly avoid sounding all muzza haha)
-
Hahaha, it does have the muzza effect I admit.
Sometimes I do it just to piss my English Language friends off :P
I don't see anything wrong with inventing solutions to fill in language inadequacies.
-
Ending a sentence with a proposition is something up with which I will not put.
-
Quantum Leap
Anyone who uses this expression immediately turns me off listening to them.
-
Quantum Leap
Anyone who uses this expression immediately turns me off listening to them.
Same for me with "paradigm shift"
-
Lady: We at the network want a dog with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in
your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"?
Well, this is a dog who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and
thoroughly.
Krusty: So he's proactive, huh?
Lady: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous
paradigm.
Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just
buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?
[backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that.
[pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
Myers: Oh, yes.