People who say "anyways". It annoys me to death. The word is Anyway. no "s" at the end. Just "anyway".
Grammatical mistakes EVERYONE makes
- Thread starter 2012 Wont Happen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People never say Chris' coat as in no double s sound just say it like you would normally say that name. That is the correct way to pronounce it. People however, always say it like it is written this was Chirs's coat. Speaking of however, very few peopel put the comma after however and other words like it.
Actually, that is correct grammar. If you say not one of them are coming, you are referring to more than one, which is just like saying "are they coming?" "No, none of them are coming". Is is used to show a singular noun, not a pluarlized noun. i.e. "Is he coming?" "Yes, he is coming", instead of "Is they coming?" which is incorrect grammar usage. Although none of these are full sentences since it does not specify where they are supposed to be going.eggy32 said:People saying things like "none of them are coming." None = not one. It should be none of them is coming.
You're not talking about plurals. You are talking about one. Not one of them. It's one part of a group.mezmerizer02 said:Actually, that is correct grammar. If you say not one of them are coming, you are referring to more than one, which is just like saying "are they coming?" "No, none of them are coming". Is is used to show a singular noun, not a pluarlized noun. i.e. "Is he coming?" "Yes, he is coming", instead of "Is they coming?" which is incorrect grammar usage. Although none of these are full sentences since it does not specify where they are supposed to be going.eggy32 said:People saying things like "none of them are coming." None = not one. It should be none of them is coming.
Some people say "can I loan some money", when what they should be saying is "can I BORROW some money".
Anytime someone says the former, I respond with "ok, I want a thousand pounds."
Anytime someone says the former, I respond with "ok, I want a thousand pounds."
Eh, what irks me is when people are so intolerable about differences in dialect.Azure-Supernova said:
Okay, so that's not really a grammatical issue, but I couldn't leave it alone.
-----
On to other things--
While using the wrong word out of context is super-annoying, getting hung up on some of the intricacies of punctuation is simply an exercise in pedantry.
You know, I've tried to figure out that damned semi-colon for years, and it's just damn confusing. Almost any sentence can be structured just fine without it. It strikes me as one of those marks most favored by those who would engage in pedantic punctuation practices performed for perfect posting. (Hooray alliteration!)
But enough about all that. How hard is it to use the correct "to," "too," "two," "there," "they're," "their," "you're," or "your" in a sentence?
when it's a noun that is not a name you do not ad the S, when it is not a name, you add the S.Glademaster said:
Actually, you should research some more, because 'OK' has nothing to do with 'Okey' or 'O.K' or whatever. Instead of letter 'O' we should write 0 (zero), yep, I'm not kidding, that's correct.2012 Wont Happen said:
0k not Ok actually stands for 'zero killed' which is used during Vietnam war, when American soldiers wanted to signalize their air troops that noone died (zero killed), so if you think about that nothing except for 0k is lawfully.
But also there are many other allegations and claims that it comes from Greek language and many dubious explanations, which is essentially an agreement or an assent, back to the Native American term 'okeh' which means an agreement.
They used OK to mean Orfully Konfused, or Often Kontradicts, for example. The continued use of the term eventually migrated into not only the American language, but is used around the world as well.
ACK, THE ATTACK OF THE ERRONEOUS COMMAS!
Dude, even the BANK makes the mistake... damn.
You've honestly had that happen to you? You're surrounded by brainless douchebags.Stabby Joe said:
Oooo... where to start. Well, I think the two main ones that seem to slip past everyone are:
"Gotten". This maybe correct grammar in Shakespeare English and American English but in UK English it is not. In American English you might say "He's gotten over it." But in UK English the correct phrase is "He's got over it." I've kicked myself many a time for letting down my English teacher.
"Could of/Should of/Would of". Although people say it like that that is bad grammar and it's always "could have/should have/would have".
Everyone makes these mistakes I'm sure at least once in their time (I know I have).
"Gotten". This maybe correct grammar in Shakespeare English and American English but in UK English it is not. In American English you might say "He's gotten over it." But in UK English the correct phrase is "He's got over it." I've kicked myself many a time for letting down my English teacher.
"Could of/Should of/Would of". Although people say it like that that is bad grammar and it's always "could have/should have/would have".
Everyone makes these mistakes I'm sure at least once in their time (I know I have).
That makes very little sense you have basically contradicted yourself. If a noun is not a naming noun there are different rules eg. princesses. If it is a naming noun however you just use nothing for plural. Although if you want to get into possessive which is what I was giving an example if something ends with the letter s you just add a '. That is it and you don't pronounce it like it is written as 's.mezmerizer02 said:
Maybe your bank makes that mistake.Plurralbles said:
Also people who use 'i.e.' in the place of 'e.g.'. They mean two different things!
This, and not necessarily just because I love the word pedantry.unoleian said:
Though I have never really looked into it, or ever thought that there was material on it to look into, I have been known to whip out the ol' semicolon now and then. I always understood it to be the comma's comma, something to take the place of a comma when a comma just can't hack it. See how the comma in the semicolon is holding up a period? That's because it is an extra strong comma, strong like ox.
Okay, so that last bit I just made up.
Incorrect. While the word none is technically singular itself, you determine whether you should use a singular or plural verb based on the noun that none is modifying. Since your example sentence was "None of them are coming," the noun being modified is the plural them. In these situations, both the singular and plural forms of verbs are generally considered grammatically correct but the plural is more correct in modern English. If the noun being modified was singular, as in "None of the food is spoiled," then you would obviously use the singular verb.eggy32 said:
Someone incorrectly correcting another person's grammar will set me off every time.