| 3:17 am on Jan 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Another one I'm tripping over right and left is "seam" instead of "seem". Sometimes it's used consistently, many times throughout a post.
| 8:38 am on Jan 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I was going to add "och aye" |
This is not a misspelling but a different language and being married into the "Auld Alliance" you should know that ;)
| 9:30 am on Jan 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sight for site.
| 11:26 am on Jan 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Peruse concurrent thread [webmasterworld.com]..live
Ps ..I have to admit to having feminised "bon" to "bonne" in a post last night due to exhaustion and "grape and grain" ..but I did remember the following ^ which is actually depreciated .
| 1:48 pm on Jan 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm .... algorthm?
Is that something to do with Al Gore?
| 1:54 am on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How about "scrapper" instead of "scraper"?
| 8:41 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Early in this thread there was discussion of the use of "it's" (with apostrophe) for the possessive pronoun "its". But I think that one is a times simply a typo by someone that does know the correct form.
On the other hand, many folks haven't a clue how to use apostrophes, and often throw one in when using a plural, non-possessive noun. E.g., someone on another forum recently complimented those who had offered helpful advice as
It's even crazier when people use an apostrophe to form the plural of their own name, e.g., "The Smith's will be there." (They tend to use to very same--and still incorrect-- form for the plural possessive: "We're meeting at the Smith's house.")
| 10:58 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Another one frequently used here in WebmasterWorld ( I saw the most recent example posted today ) ..
"analisis" ..the well known egyptian goddess of ....well ..you know ..;)
| 1:24 am on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I try to avoid any word that begins with "anal".
| 11:34 am on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Even better: potatoe's
| 11:44 am on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Even though an apostrophe shouldn't generally be used in plurals, some style guides suggest that they should be used for clarity.
For example; to denote a collection of letter A's.
| 12:36 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I prefer: a collection of letter 'A's.
One point which does seem to differ between guidelines is whether the pen belonging to Marcus is Markus's Pen or Markus' Pen.
| 2:00 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|One point which does seem to differ between guidelines is whether the pen belonging to Marcus is Markus's Pen or Markus' Pen. |
I would go with Marcus's pen. According to the first rule in Strunk & White's Elements of Style (and frankly the ONLY thing I remember from having to read the book in high school!), the "s" should be added in almost every case. They give the example, "Charles's book". The only exceptions they allow are some archaic names whose last two syllables each end with a sibilant and hence would become overwhelming if we added another (examples: Moses', Jesus', Isis', Ramses'). IOW, if you can add the "s" and still pronounce the word (and be able to stop!), add it.
Grammarians' rules can at times get a bit silly--trying to force logical consistency on a language where it has no interest in such.** But this one always struck me as eminently sensible and, better than that, easy to put into practice.
**Sometimes they win. Thus, on "logical" grounds, "proper English" disallows the double negative found in many other languages, even though it can be rhetorically effective, and properly used need not lead to confusion.
| 9:13 am on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Hello my name is Tammy, it has been 2 days since my last misspelled thread..."
I can't believe I actually fell off the wagon and then noticed too late! Oh where for art thou lovely spell checker!
| 10:03 am on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
While on the subject of spelilng, I think you'll find that it's "wherefore" :)
| 10:29 am on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 1:23 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|While on the subject of spelilng [sic! or sick?], I think you'll find that it's "wherefore" |
And just slightly off the subject, I think you'll find that "wherefore" does not mean "where" (as in your example, and as many now try to use it), but "why".
("Wherefore art thou Romeo?" has nothing to do with his location. It is bemoaning the fact that he's a Montague, of the family Juliet's [the Capulets] is feuding with. IOW, "If only you could have a different family name!")
If it helps, it's the equivalent of German "wofuer" (probably not a fat lot of help, eh? oh well!) Maybe English will help more -- the "where" in 'where+preposition' compounds means "which" or "what"; compare "whereof", meaning "of what, of which". (See also "whereupon", "whereat".)
| This 137 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 137 ( 1 2 3 4  ) |