Vindication From a Formally Reliable Source!

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,878
10,690
147
From something I somehow got subscribed to called "Word Genius" comes the following clarification. Hey, it's got "genius" right in the title, so you know they're correct! ;)

5 Obscure Grammar Rules You Didn’t Know Existed

A and An

The articles "a" and "an" are used based on vowel sounds, not the actual vowels used. The phrase “an hour” is grammatically correct while “a hour” is not.

^^^ Pinheads have arisen en masse of late and tried to proclaim otherwise. Pinheads they are, and pinheads they shall remain!
7G3zITG.png
7G3zITG.png
7G3zITG.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyking

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,878
10,690
147
cool, but shouldn't most educated people already know these things?
Re: The proper use of 'a' and 'an." Many putatively "educated" adults stridently hold forth otherwise.

They are wrong. I pity the fools. :cool: ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Iron Woode

Doom Monger

Member
Jun 15, 2020
25
18
41
cool, but shouldn't most educated people already know these things?

Yes. And the people who don't already know it won't bother to learn, so I'm puzzled as to who the article is supposed to teach.

I'd be happy if people could learn the different usages of to/too/two, there/their/they're and your/you're, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime. Can we start small and agree to beat to death anyone that thinks adding an apostrophe s to a word pluralizes it? Those people's need to have their head's removed from their butt's.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Perknose

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,066
4,712
126
“An history book” vs “a history book.”

Round one.

Fight!
Is there any debate about this one? Who, on either side, would say "an history book"? It doesn't start with a vowel sound, so of course it is "a history book".
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,180
11,355
136
Is there any debate about this one? Who, on either side, would say "an history book"? It doesn't start with a vowel sound, so of course it is "a history book".
You're one of those weirdos that says "a hotel" as well aren't you?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Captante

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,937
19,175
136
Yes. And the people who don't already know it won't bother to learn, so I'm puzzled as to who the article is supposed to teach.

I'd be happy if people could learn the different usages of to/too/two, there/their/they're and your/you're, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime. Can we start small and agree to beat to death anyone that thinks adding an apostrophe s to a word pluralizes it? Those people's need to have their head's removed from their butt's.
I have a co-worker who will invariably use an incorrect form of there/their/they're regardless of the situation. You'd think through chance he'd get it right once in a while, but at this point I figure maybe he managed to memorize them incorrectly.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,180
11,355
136
I have a co-worker who will invariably use an incorrect form of there/their/they're regardless of the situation. You'd think through chance he'd get it right once in a while, but at this point I figure maybe he managed to memorize them incorrectly.
Tell him that "thier'er" is the correct form but no one uses it properly!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lxskllr

Doom Monger

Member
Jun 15, 2020
25
18
41
I have a co-worker who will invariably use an incorrect form of there/their/they're regardless of the situation. You'd think through chance he'd get it right once in a while, but at this point I figure maybe he managed to memorize them incorrectly.

Yes, simple math says that even people that don't understand the right usages will get there/their/they're and to/too/two correct 33% of the time and your/you're right 50% of the time, but it sure doesn't seem that way. The people that miss them get them wrong every time, it defies the laws of probability. Maybe those people failed math and English at the same time.

What pisses me off even more is "should of", "could of" and "would of". I should of passed English and would of gotten an A if the teacher could of allowed us to use our own contractions. It sounds like "could of" when spoken people, but it's "could've", a contraction of "could have". If you think it through the phrase "could of" makes no sense.

I could've made a fortune if I would've gotten a dime from every person that should've known better and used those wrong.
 
Last edited: