That's a viewpoint spoken as unquestioned fact - we could follow this logic in a number of cases (people using 'ironic' in place of 'coincidental', for example) but that doesn't make it correct. The word 'literally' still has its place in the English language because it has not been replaced, unless you prefer the use of 'non-metaphorically' in its place, which of course, nobody does, but using 'literally' unnecessarily where other words will do the trick is lazy and messy. While we all know what he means, it is fact that Jamie Redknapp is a dolt and though by this writer's definition, not incorrect, he's still a pain in the arse. I strongly dislike "the word is commonly misused therefore it is used correctly" argument, purely on the grounds of being lazy with a very good language. It's literally disgusting.
Brilliant find Jaidi (although I have to agree with Dan on the matter). Can we just say that Redknapp is c**p instead. Talking of which I was very impressed with Francis Benali whilst watching the Middlesborough game.
Yes, "they're" and "you're". Apostrophes are easy, no excuses. Though one area of confusion which Fran brought up earlier (I think it was Fran) is greengrocers/greengrocer's/greengrocers'. It was on QI actually.
Well, one I remember from from my Biology lesson was the word to describe a class of cells; Polymorphonucleargranulocytes. Actually having written it down, that might be two words so not quite so impressive. Ah well. I do get annoyed by the "loose points" but I rarely get on my high horse about it all, because as has already been seen, it's so easy to make an error in your post and then you look like a right pillock! I do read my stuff after posting because I have a habit of missing out words and also because although I know perfectly well the difference between, "there, their and they're", when typing at speed I can use the wrong one. The thing which brings out the Grammar Nazi in me is the use of expressions such as, "if West Ham score less goals than us.." rather than the correct fewer goals. I see it all the time and let it go, unless someone has come on here from outside trying to wind up our board, in which case I am quite happy to point out their shortcomings! I should add that I have no such self-control at home and should one of my children refer to "one of them things over there.." then I give them the "look" and they correct themselves. Unwisely, I also correct Mrs Fodder's use of "less and fewer" (just can't help myself) and then I get a different "look" back!
Not really, at least not from me. I know there are a couple of posters on here who like to play with words, and I do as well, if in a very limited way. The thing I like to do is occasionally introduce a rarely used word and see if it gets taken up by others. I will also use less common words in conversation, not to appear clever [because one person did suggest that a time back], but to resurrect the word to see if it can fly again. An example is the word Singular. If you hear Billy Connolly, he will always talk about extraordinary things. Things are extraordinary to him. One jump back from extraordinary, is perhaps singular. So I tried using it. It didn't catch on. One word that did catch on, and I'm claiming it, is Excellent, as in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. In the late 1970's a mate and me used to play these kind of word games and we'd use words in a pub to see if they'd catch on. A bit like I still do. We used excellent for eveything. How are you..? I'm excellent..! What's she like..? She's excellent..! How was riding the bike..? That was excellent..! Pretty soon [about 6 months], everywhere we went, people were using the word just like we did, so we dropped it to see if it would fly by itself. Then a mutual friend of ours, who was now using it a lot, went over to the USA. Pretty soon he got everyone he met up with using it over there. Years later, it returned with Bill & Ted. You'll notice the way they say excellent..? Although it was slightly americanised, that was exactly the way we pronounced it. Started by my mate and me, in The Cowherds pub.
Some may be thankfull , but Grammer Nazi's are the reason i don't post much . No need for it on a football forum .
You guys are all going to send me to the mad house. I was cool and calm until you all (nearly all) shattered my confidence that we would defeat Coventry easily next Saturday, now you are undermining my confidence in my use of the Queen's English and on top of that TheSecondStain has me looking at Lowryesque little figures trying to decipher a secret meessage that has my head spinning. However to keep up with the spirit of this thread and in particular text speak I have a whole collection of postcards from over a hundred years ago posted to my grandmother by her various sisters in which these usually very articulate and verbose women write very brief messages to each other having seen each other earlier in the day safe in the knowledge that the postcard would also arrive on the same day. As an example I have a postcard from one great Aunt who having travelled home to London from Windsor posted a card to say "Have arrived home safely will write soon". It is postmarked the same day that she wrote it and woud have been received by the second post the same day. They were using postcards in exactly the same way young people use text messages today. One can only assume that later she sat down and wrote a lengthy letter. I can provide many more examples and I am sure that any posters who collect old postcards could do the same.
Godders, type Dancing Men code into Google and look for the message that corresponds to the figures. EDIT: Looking at the rest of your post, I think it's brilliant, the way your Aunt's were using the technology of the day to its best. Of course, letter post was superb in those days, sometimes having three posts in one day.
I usually resist correcting people because 1) it would take up half my day and 2) I make mistakes as well, but someone rattled my cage. Also, we have to realise is that words do change with time...what's incorrect today will be accepted in a few years. 'Literally' being an example.
Make a change though, doesn't it.? Keeps us fresh for more important matters to come. Consider it that we're limbering up for a summer without Saints footy.
I was stunned to read in an old newspaper that my grandfather's brother's funeral was pathetic. He had a military funeral in 1917 having lost both of his parents and his oldest brother in the war years. Over the intervening 100 years the meaning of the word pathetic has changed.
This can be turned into a bit of Grammar Nazi fun by purposefully using the wrong one in sentences where the mistake would not normally be made: "I have fewer beer than you."
"Greengrocers" is a group of greengrocers; "greengrocer's" belongs to the greengrocer; "greengrocers'" belongs to a group of greengrocers; a greengrocer is the person who sells your groceries. Presuming your greengrocer's establishment is independent and not franchised by a group of greengrocers who call their shops "Greengrocers'", I'd be inclined to refer to my greengrocer's premises as a greengrocer's. Cue the grammar Nazis.
