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

[Broohaha]

ARGH! When will people learn!?!?!?!

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

You don't say "For all intensive purposes" you say "For all intents and purposes"

KAPISCH?!??!?


Can we pin this to the top please?

<-- puts on flame suit

[thanks bruno]

 

[HappyPuppy]

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

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

How many grammar books have you written? Just wondering.

 

[JeffSpicoli]

Stop talking to idiots.

 

I know how you feel. I always make sure to pronounce "for all intents and purposes" very articulately so that people know what I'm saying. UGH I hate when people use sayings without really knowing them!

 

[wfbberzerker]

here's a website that lists a lot of common english errors (including the your/you're fiasco)

 

[schizoid]

Man...I'd hate to be a photographer taking your pitcher.

You probably never warsh your hands.

I hope we don't have a nukular war.

 

[Double Trouble]

Wow... someone needs a hug

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

You don't say "For all intensive purposes" you say "For all intents and purposes"

That one drives me nuts as well.

Plus in the south you have "whollago" Which is "a while ago"

I think you are misunderstanding the "would of" I think people are just trying to make a contraction of would and have, "would've"

 

[Howard]

Of course, your lakking in the four-in larngeauges dee-parnment.

 

[wfbberzerker]

Originally posted by: schizoid
Man...I'd hate to be a photographer taking your pitcher.

You probably never warsh your hands.

I hope we don't have a nukular war.

we ain't gonna have one for awhile, so you and youre friends dont hafta worry

 

[Harvey]

Creative "revision" of the language for effect aside, the piss poor spelling and grammar, and general abuses of the English language I see on AT makes me sad about the state of education in the U.S. (Serious statement) It's enough to make me anti-semantic.

 

[feralkid]

I'm pretty sure it's spelled "CAPICHE".

 

[DaveSimmons]

Since it's the Mr. Language Person thread:

Your point is not "mute" (silent) it's "moot" (already decided, taken from Old English word for a meeting).

 

[Kadarin]

This reminds me of those idiots who were offended because they thought "niggardly" was a racial slur..

 

[tcsenter]

You don't say "For all intensive purposes" you say "For all intents and purposes"

I have said the former even though I've known the expression was in fact the latter for years. Some times things just roll out of your mouth that way.

But seriously, if you were in the car with some friends, and one of them used the word "ain't", would you start screaming and kicking like a neurotic child about "ain't" being an "improper" word? If you were in my car, I'd stop and toss you out on the side of the highway. Too bad we can't do that here.

The last I checked, a casual discussion forum was not meaningfully different from any venue for casual discussion. If we expected or intended to be considered for publication, or were interviewing for a visiting scholar fellowship at Oxford, that would be different.

There is really not much credibility to the idea which holds that a discussion forum where "ownz" and "lol!" are permissible is not a venue where the inattentive spelling and grammatical mistake is also permissible.

IOW, if you need to boost your low self-esteem, do it elsewhere.

 

[zippy]

I had the 'for all intensive purposes' vs. 'for all intents and purposes' discussion the other day with a few people. I was correct of course (or I wouldn't be posting this ) and they really didn't question me too much beyond 'are you sure?' a few times.

I would of let it go, but it bothers me two.

 

[Broohaha]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

You don't say "For all intensive purposes" you say "For all intents and purposes"

I have said the former even though I've known the expression was in fact the latter for years. Some times things just roll out of your mouth that way. But seriously, if you were in the car with some friends, and one of them used the word "ain't", would you start screaming and kicking like a neurotic child about "ain't" being an "improper" word? If you were in my car, I'd stop and toss you out on the side of the highway. Too bad we can't do that here. The last I checked, a casual discussion forum was not meaningfully different from any venue for casual discussion. If we expected or intended to be considered for publication, or were interviewing for a visiting scholar fellowship at Oxford, that would be different. There is really not much credibility to the idea which holds that a discussion forum where "ownz" and "lol!" are permissible is not a venue where the inattentive spelling and grammatical mistake is also permissible. IOW, if you need to boost your low self-esteem, do it elsewhere.

There's a qualitative difference between using "ain't" and using "for all intensive purposes"... the former is widely used; the latter gets really maddening when you read it in text. The big thing is I read "would of" in all the forums I attend. That just drives me loco.

Anyhoo, I went out of my way to seem all angry and crazy in the initial post but to be honest, I couldn't care less; just thought I'd bring it up in a nutty way to stir some people (hence the flame suit).

What's IOW, btw?

 

[Zebo]

"<-- puts on flame suit "

When you learn compleete sentance stucture feel free to crittersize.

 

[athithi]

heh heh Some more ATOTisms...

definitely => definately (my personal favourite, since it feels like someone rubbing a rusty saw through an open, festering wound, infected with maggots and then sprinkling red chilli powder and rubbing it with sand-paper after which they spread some honey and let loose some fire ants over it)
sense => sence
response => responce

Typos, I can understand. But when I see a person use 'definately' and 'would of', I immediately think, "there's someone that didn't pay a lot of attention in school, if at all he or she went to one" People make mistakes all the time but, the frequency with which some use the above corruptions makes it that much harder for people to correct themselves. It also implies that it is not just a slip-up - rather a habitual mistake made out of ignorance. tcsenter, you can protest all you want and hypothetically throw me out of your 'ATOT car'. You would still be wrong

 

[speed01]

Wow!! That explains why I could never see the correlation between campers and dolphins....." In tents and porpoises".... never really made any sence too me....

 

[schizoid]

I like to eat poop.

 

[ElFenix]

one thats been cropping up lately: weary instead of wary.

weary means you're tired.

wary means you're cautious.

 

[spanky]

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
here's a website that lists a lot of common english errors (including the your/you're fiasco)

thats a cool page

 

[TNTrulez]

In Russia would of says you.

 

[axelfox]

ahahaaha this thread is so funny