Sensational-Adelaide.com

Norman wrote:

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?

It is a spammer, they registered a couple of accounts and posted nonsense. Howie will deal with them soon.

monotonehell wrote:

Norman wrote:

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?

It is a spammer, they registered a couple of accounts and posted nonsense. Howie will deal with them soon.

Whilst I too don't understand the original comment, how can such an assumption be made that this account is a spammer when they've posted other comments on other threads that actually make sense to the topic? Doesn't spam mean they're trying to sell something?

Patrick_27 wrote:Whilst I too don't understand the original comment, how can such an assumption be made that this account is a spammer when they've posted other comments on other threads that actually make sense to the topic? Doesn't spam mean they're trying to sell something?

Those are anchor posts, they post seemingly sensible posts, but later come back, edit the post and add their advertising.

What gave away these ones to me is that the signatures of both have the same name in them.

monotonehell wrote:What gave away these ones to me is that the signatures of both have the same name in them.

Mono said "these ones"

rhino wrote:

monotonehell wrote:What gave away these ones to me is that the signatures of both have the same name in them.

Mono said "these ones"

These spammers.... ?? Is there a pun here which I am oblivious to?

"these" and "those" implies these ones and those ones, resulting in the phrases "these ones" and "those ones" being incorrect English. You can have these two, these three, these few etc, but not these ones.

rhino wrote:"these" and "those" implies these ones and those ones, resulting in the phrases "these ones" and "those ones" being incorrect English. You can have these two, these three, these few etc, but not these ones.

Huh?

These is the plural of this and those is the plural of that.
Ones is the uncounted plural of one.

So what exactly is incorrect aboutt these ones, or indeed those ones?

Aidan wrote: Ones is the uncounted plural of one.

Is that in the Aidan dictionary? I don't have a copy of that.

I am aware of loved ones, etc, but it is not in the dictionary (well I can't find it), and where it is preceded by a word that implies "ones" (such as these), it is not required as it is superfluous.

The persistent use of a grammatical error is not to be construed as evidence of it's non-existence.

Anyway, back to traffic volumes ....

rhino wrote:

Aidan wrote: Ones is the uncounted plural of one.

Is that in the Aidan dictionary? I don't have a copy of that.

Not exclusively. But if you want to make an Aidan dictionary, contact me and I'll tell you what spelling quirks I use.

I am aware of loved ones, etc, but it is not in the dictionary (well I can't find it), and where it is preceded by a word that implies "ones" (such as these), it is not required as it is superfluous.

I had a quick look in the Apple dictionary and it's there. As well as "loved ones" it gives the example "they would straggle home in ones and twos".

The persistent use of a grammatical error is not to be construed as evidence of it's non-existence.

Your inability to find a commonly used word in the dictionary is not to be construed as evidence of it's non-existence.

Anyway, back to traffic volumes ....

Do any other cities map traffic volumes the way Adelaide does?

rhino wrote:

Aidan wrote: Ones is the uncounted plural of one.

Is that in the Aidan dictionary? I don't have a copy of that.

I am aware of loved ones, etc, but it is not in the dictionary (well I can't find it), and where it is preceded by a word that implies "ones" (such as these), it is not required as it is superfluous.

The persistent use of a grammatical error is not to be construed as evidence of it's non-existence.

Anyway, back to traffic volumes ....

"Ones" is in the dictionary. Look for "one" and see under that:

one
w?n/Submit
number
the lowest cardinal number; half of two; 1.
"there's only room for one person"
a single person or thing.
plural noun: ones
"they would straggle home in ones and twos"
synonyms: a single, a solitary, a sole, a lone
"only one person came"
a size of garment or other merchandise denoted by one.
plural noun: ones

Example in common use:
"I have a wide selection of magazines. Which ones would you like to read?"
After making a selection the responder might say:
"These ones, please."

Grammar Nazi points go to Aidan and me.

monotonehell wrote:Grammar Nazi points go to Aidan and me.

I'll take half a point off though for saying me instead of I.

neoballmon wrote:

monotonehell wrote:Grammar Nazi points go to Aidan and me.

I'll take half a point off though for saying me instead of I.

You'll need to take it off your own score, as Mono was grammatically correct. If you want to know why, I suggest continuing this discussion on the Officious Grammar Thread.

monotonehell wrote:Grammar Nazi points go to Aidan and me.

Well played sir. My favourite grammar misconception expertly demonstrated by drawing in the naïve.

Now I hope that is all from Aidan, Mono and me because Aidan, Mono and I would prefer to get back to the subject at hand.

Westside wrote:

monotonehell wrote:Grammar Nazi points go to Aidan and me.

Well played sir. My favourite grammar misconception expertly demonstrated by drawing in the naïve.

Now I hope that is all from Aidan, Mono and me because Aidan, Mono and I would prefer to get back to the subject at hand.

Thanks for this post. I was trying to remember where these posts were so I could move them here.

I'll try and get some pictures today.

Many people all over the English speaking World say this.

It's "try to" not "try and". You can't just try by itself. You have to try >something<. The use of "and" suggests a list of things.

I will run and jump.

There are two actions here represented in a list by the verbs "run" & "jump".

I will try to jump.

When used in this way "try" is a catenative verb. That is, it adds to the other verb (i.e. catenates).

Compare to:

They deserve to win the Building of the Year Award.

Here "deserve" is being the catenative verb. Does the following mean the same?

They deserve and win the Building of the Year Award.

No. If you take the meaning of "try and..." literally, "try" means to put on trial, therefore, "try and get some pictures" would mean you were going to charge some pictures with some law in court and then receive those pictures. Nonsense!

(I would complain how "get" doesn't mean to obtain, it means to receive, but that one entered the vernacular several hundred years ago.)