Page 3 of 5

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:21 pm
by Hooligan
much grammar
very nazi
wow

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:03 pm
by slenderman
Do people really say "on accident" and "heighth"? :shock: :wallbash:

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:08 pm
by monotonehell
slenderman wrote:Do people really say "on accident" and "heighth"? :shock: :wallbash:
Apparently it's a thing in parts of the US, and not actually an error as such. It's 5th to 12th century Anglo-Saxon, still in use by some in the US. I say "still" but it's more likely a revival by some scholars who liked old texts like Beowulf.

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:29 pm
by spiller
my wife is from yankee land and says "on accident" all the time.

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:48 am
by monotonehell
spiller wrote:my wife is from yankee land and says "on accident" all the time.
Meh people on both sides of the Pacific say "try and (do something)", when it should be "try TO (do something)". A lot (alot!) of grammar errors are learned.

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:25 am
by Waewick
I like trying to get for all intents and purposes into a sentence

you quite often get told you are saying it wrong...the same as when people insist Moet is said without pronouncing the T.

I am one of those people that love to be corrected if I am saying something incorrectly or misusing a word, that is why I like forums and even threads like this one where people seem to enjoy debating the topic without being offended if it turns out they were using a word incorrectly.

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:04 am
by [Shuz]
Does anyone see the irony in having an 'officious grammar thread' that doesn't even have the correct grammar in its title? Where are the capitals? Is officious even a word? Shouldn't it technically include spelling also?

The Officious Spelling and Grammar Thread

Look at that, how much nicer it is. All proper and whatnot.

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:11 am
by Maximus
[Shuz] wrote:Does anyone see the irony in having an 'officious grammar thread' that doesn't even have the correct grammar in its title? Where are the capitals? Is officious even a word? Shouldn't it technically include spelling also?

The Officious Spelling and Grammar Thread

Look at that, how much nicer it is. All proper and whatnot.
Go back and read the first page of this thread. Already debated. Good luck changing Mono's mind... :(

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:33 am
by [Shuz]
Well, Mono, I'm of the school of thought that one must capitalise all words in a title, excepting interconnecting words such as 'and, or, the'. You're right however, that it is a matter of taste. Yours is just simply not to my liking.

Good day, sir.

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:46 pm
by rhino
This just strolled through the ether and on to my screen, it's absolutely brilliant


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:42 pm
by monotonehell
rhino wrote:This just strolled through the ether and on to my screen, it's absolutely brilliant
Like.

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:53 pm
by Hooligan
Weird Al is awesome.

/thread

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:21 pm
by Wayno
grammar-police.jpg
grammar-police.jpg (55.43 KiB) Viewed 8361 times

Re: officious grammar thread

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:48 pm
by monotonehell
Wayno wrote:...
like

Re: Traffic volumes

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:27 pm
by Norman
malik136 wrote:The numbers adjacent to the roads I assume is the volume of cars, and I find it very interesting. For example, the city end of port road volume reads at over 60,000 over a 24 hour period.
With the state government today saying they expect CBD population to double over the next decade.. I wonder how our roads are going to cope?
What does the CBD population have to do with traffic volumes on Port Road?