inkman Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 For God's sake people: Connolly - it's two o's, get it right loser, lose, losing - it's one o, losers than - when comparing two things, this is how you spell it ridiculous - this isn't that hard people Any other spelling Nazis want to join in, please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Can't be loose with the spelling when Ink is here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 For God's sake people: Connolly - it's two o's, get it right loser, lose, losing - it's one o, losers than - when comparing two things, this is how you spell it ridiculous - this isn't that hard people Any other spelling Nazis want to join in, please do. This is a dangerous game you are playing, my friend. Here's mine: only 1 m in Pominville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Not sure I've ever seen the word "where" mispelled. Thats's borderline illiterate. Maybe we could start with this sentence. :nana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Maybe we could start with this sentence. :nana: I suppose misspelling misspelling is a major faux pas but where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 And this one: Supercalafragalisticexpialadoshus Get it right people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 I suppose misspelling misspelling is a major faux pas but where? Webster's bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screamin'Weasel Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 For God's sake people: Connolly - it's two o's, get it right loser, lose, losing - it's one o, losers than - when comparing two things, this is how you spell it ridiculous - this isn't that hard people Any other spelling Nazis want to join in, please do. Where - there is an "h" in it. Resign - to quit. Re-sign - to sign someone again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Webster's bar. All the barstool seats are dictionaries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screamin'Weasel Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Webster's bar. Would that be Tom Webster's bar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Any other spelling Nazis want to join in, please do. May I? Learn the difference between to, too, two, and 2. Also, a grammar annoyance: people are not "that", they are "who"; as in "The folks THAT sit in the 300 section", which is wrong - correct would be "The folks WHO sit in the 300 section". This particular grammar foul is committed daily and everywhere and makes little kittens sad the American Educational System has failed so thoroughly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Would that be Tom Webster's bar? :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 The Buffalo apostrophe. Apostrophes are not used to make plurals. In other word's, this sentence is wrong. You have great seats for the game, not great seat's, and the team you are rooting for is the Sabres, not the Sabre's, and there is not a restaurant on William Street that has great soup's. There is not a single word* in the English language for which the plural is formed by adding an apostrophe-s. Not one. Don't do it. If you don't need to show possession, you probably do not need to use an apostrophe-s. And yeah, there's a case where a possessive is formed without an apostrophe-s, too. It's tricky, but if you're attentive, you'll notice its presence here. *Yeah, some people form the plurals of letters this way, e.g., "my son had three A's and two B's last semester," but those aren't words. And apparently, this confuses all of WNY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screamin'Weasel Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 The Buffalo apostrophe. Apostrophes are not used to make plurals. In other word's, this sentence is wrong. You have great seats for the game, not great seat's, and the team you are rooting for is the Sabres, not the Sabre's, and there is not a restaurant on William Street that has great soup's. There is not a single word* in the English language for which the plural is formed by adding an apostrophe-s. Not one. Don't do it. If you don't need to show possession, you probably do not need to use an apostrophe-s. And yeah, there's a case where a possessive is formed without an apostrophe-s, too. It's tricky, but if you're attentive, you'll notice its presence here. *Yeah, some people form the plurals of letters this way, e.g., "my son had three A's and two B's last semester," but those aren't words. And apparently, this confuses all of WNY. Ah, but which word, that is singular, can you remove an "s" from to make a plural word? God I'm a dork... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 This is not spelling but it is could have and should have, not could of and should of. That always bothers me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 This is not spelling but it is could have and should have, not could of and should of. That always bothers me. It's okay; you could've started a new thread, but this one's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Ah, but which word, that is singular, can you remove an "s" from to make a plural word? God I'm a dork... Yes. Yes you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 One bit of spelling then one bit of grammar: Paetsch I SAW Inkman the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 I suppose misspelling misspelling is a major faux pas but where? Anywhere it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 May I? Learn the difference between to, too, two, and 2. Also, a grammar annoyance: people are not "that", they are "who"; as in "The folks THAT sit in the 300 section", which is wrong - correct would be "The folks WHO sit in the 300 section". This particular grammar foul is committed daily and everywhere and makes little kittens sad the American Educational System has failed so thoroughly. Is a cat a "that"? My cat's a "who." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 May I? Learn the difference between to, too, two, and 2. Also, a grammar annoyance: people are not "that", they are "who"; as in "The folks THAT sit in the 300 section", which is wrong - correct would be "The folks WHO sit in the 300 section". This particular grammar foul is committed daily and everywhere and makes little kittens sad the American Educational System has failed so thoroughly. Instinctively, I didn't think that last one was correct, and my OED lists references to people as an acceptable use of "that." Neither of the two style manuals I have at home (I'm an even bigger dork than Weasel is) treat the issue, but here's a writer who takes your side but acknowledges that the matter isn't exactly decided: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-that.aspx Enough spelling and grammar for me, even for a rainy Saturday. I'll check back later, after I go out, and when I'm more error-prone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Ah, but which word, that is singular, can you remove an "s" from to make a plural word? God I'm a dork... when do we get the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwcolour Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Not so much here but other places when people want to tell me what a dick and how stupid I am... they say YOUR SUCH A MORON. You are = You're Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohiofan Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 And this one: Supercalafragalisticexpialadoshus Get it right people. Sorry spndnchz...its: Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious My daughter saw "Mary Poppins" on Broadway with her Ballet Company last year. After the show, they were invited to learn the dance in a private lesson from the cast. The word is in the song and they spell it out and it's pretty cool. When the company came home they performed it for us parents :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 i could not agree more outrage i tell you outrage.... its spelled : Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis , why anyone would have a difficulty with spelling ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.