Argh! It's "would have" not "would of" and it's NOT "for all intensive purposes"

[element]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

Unfortunately, despite the protestations that this butchering of the language only happens during casula discussions, this view is remarkably naive....

The salient point missed is that these lack of skills are beginning to turn up in papers written for business and on advertisements for products. Yesterday, a web site, in its descriptoin of a produce, misused THEN for THAN, and used the WOULD OF instead of the WOULD'VE contraction...

Too many grammatcial and spelling errors just tires one to the point that the reader moves along. In business, that level of poor grammar and spelling will assure your promotions within the company will be slow. From talks given by "local" CEOs, Home Depot and Coca-Cola among the larger that have spoken at our univ., poor writing is very noticed.........maybe nothing ever is said, but it is noticed.

Indeed it is! lol!

and furthermore;

" the salient point missed is that these lack of skills are beginning to turn up in papers"





It should be "this" lack of skills.....Not "these" lack of skills. "this lack of skills IS beginning to turn up..."

Why would it be this lack of skills? It is plural, so these lack of skills sounds correct to me. If he were saying this lack of skill annoys me, perhaps that would be correct also.

 

[Howard]

Is "lack" singular or plural?

 

[js1973]

What if you said "...these skills are lacking."?

 

[SharkyTM]

how about "Febuary" ... no first R
and "Libery" instead of Library... again, no first R
Crik instrad of Creek

 

[ProviaFan]

Yea, those mistakes bother me, almost as much as the misuse of its/it's and their/they're/there. :frown:

 

[Orsorum]

Isn't it "capice"?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: SharkyTM
how about "Febuary" ... no first R
and "Libery" instead of Library... again, no first R
Crik instrad of Creek

Crick is another word for Creek... which can mean many things, one of which is a small shallow stream.

 

[Maetryx]

I could careless.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

And it's cost, not "costed".

 

[dethman]

i like this thread.

also for SALE not for sell. stupid FS/FT forum.

 

[DeRusto]

Originally posted by: element®

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

Unfortunately, despite the protestations that this butchering of the language only happens during casula discussions, this view is remarkably naive....

The salient point missed is that these lack of skills are beginning to turn up in papers written for business and on advertisements for products. Yesterday, a web site, in its descriptoin of a produce, misused THEN for THAN, and used the WOULD OF instead of the WOULD'VE contraction...

Too many grammatcial and spelling errors just tires one to the point that the reader moves along. In business, that level of poor grammar and spelling will assure your promotions within the company will be slow. From talks given by "local" CEOs, Home Depot and Coca-Cola among the larger that have spoken at our univ., poor writing is very noticed.........maybe nothing ever is said, but it is noticed.

Indeed it is! lol!

and furthermore;

" the salient point missed is that these lack of skills are beginning to turn up in papers"





It should be "this" lack of skills.....Not "these" lack of skills. "this lack of skills IS beginning to turn up..."

Why would it be this lack of skills? It is plural, so these lack of skills sounds correct to me. If he were saying this lack of skill annoys me, perhaps that would be correct also.

Lack of skills is singular. There is ONE lack of skills. The preposition "of skills" does not determine the plurality of the noun. Taking out the preposition will show you this is correct, "THIS lack IS beginning to turn up..."

If it had been "These lacking skills are beginning to turn up" that would be fine as well because skills is now the noun.

EDIT: btw, i'm not anal about grammar

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: element®
Pea Sea Spell Checker


Eye halve a spelling checker
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marcs four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
Eye am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My checker tolled me sew.

What's wrong with that, impeccable spelling skills!

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Broohaha
ARGH! When will people learn!?!?!?!

You don't say "I would of gone to the zoo" you say "I <STRONG><EM>would've </EM></STRONG>gone to the zoo"

You don't say "For all intensive purposes" you say "For all <STRONG><EM>intents and purposes</EM></STRONG>"

<STRONG><EM>KAPISCH?!??!?</EM></STRONG>


Can we pin this to the top please?

<-- puts on flame suit

[thanks bruno]

I agree. Another thing that drives me crazy is the stupid idiots that don't know that sentences end with periods. :|