|
zridling
|
 |
« on: January 01, 2010, 04:48:41 AM » |
|
 Cute. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lanux128
|
|
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2010, 07:32:00 AM » |
|
indeed very cute. it's so nice to see the your and you're pair in there as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tomos
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2010, 08:20:39 AM » |
|
Fun allright all right I suspect 'alot' will be a single word in the future (along [a long?  ] with a lot of other changes) PS lovely font there - Fontin I think |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
mrainey
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2010, 09:00:16 AM » |
|
That's quite a website. LMAO.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
f0dder
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2010, 09:48:17 AM » |
|
Nice  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 - carpe noctem |
|
|
|
housetier
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2010, 11:50:44 AM » |
|
This is really helpful. Well, the violent language makes it a little less ernst. I think a good many people could actually profit from reading this, if only they read it.
However, I have one question regarding loose/lose: how do you spell the opposite of "find"?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lanux128
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2010, 12:26:44 PM » |
|
However, I have one question regarding loose/lose: how do you spell the opposite of "find"? since 'find' is a verb, then it's opposite would be 'lose'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Innuendo
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2010, 12:41:01 PM » |
|
You can rarely find people who can actually speak proper English anymore so what makes you think these people will actually take the time to spell correctly?
The opposite of find is lose.
The opposite of tight is loose.
Being an English-speaking person I often wonder if such blatant and horrid spelling & grammatical errors are being made in other languages in other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cranioscopical
|
|
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2010, 01:17:32 PM » |
|
I often wonder if such blatant and horrid spelling & grammatical errors are being made in other languages in other countries
Mai none! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chris
|
|
|
|
slowmaker
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2010, 01:40:32 PM » |
|
Being an English-speaking person I often wonder if such blatant and horrid spelling & grammatical errors are being made in other languages in other countries.
I doubt it. I imagine a lot of other languages have more consistent rule sets that prevent it, since they are generally not globbed together from multiple languages the way English is. I think I remember seeing a post somewhere to the effect that Finnish people don't have spelling bees, for instance; the whole concept would apparently be absurd to them because the sound matches the spelling, every time. I don't know squat about Finland or the language; I'm assuming the poster I remember knew what they were talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WinXP Home SP3 - PSPad 4.5.4
|
|
|
|
mrainey
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2010, 02:02:47 PM » |
|
I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but have lived in Spanish-speaking countries and taken lots of college-level classes. The spelling and pronunciation follow clear, consistent rules, and there aren't many of them to remember.
The grammar can be your worst nightmare.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cyberdiva
|
|
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2010, 04:41:13 PM » |
|
Spanish is certainly spelled and pronounced more consistently than English, but it's still possible to make spelling errors in Spanish. For example, the h is not pronounced. I remember my shock upon seeing "he hecho" in writing. It never occurred to me that these words began with a silent h. Also, s, z, and c (when it precedes i or e) are pronounced alike in Latin American Spanish (though not in the Spanish spoken in Spain). I often guess wrong when I consult a dictionary to find a word I've heard. Still, I've given thanks many times that I'm a native English speaker--I'd HATE to have to learn that language!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zridling
|
|
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2010, 06:39:07 PM » |
|
Perhaps we should add pronunciation errors, too. I'm ready for this century to be "20_._" as in "Twenty-ten," not Two-thousand ten. Yet the idiots on my TeeVee keep saying the latter. I don't remember them saying "Nineteen hundred seventy-five"!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Innuendo
|
|
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2010, 10:36:18 PM » |
|
Perhaps we should add pronunciation errors, too. I'm ready for this century to be "20_._" as in "Twenty-ten," not Two-thousand ten. Yet the idiots on my TeeVee keep saying the latter. I don't remember them saying "Nineteen hundred seventy-five"! But a few days ago were you saying "Twenty-nine"? Or "Twenty-Oh-Nine"? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lanux128
|
|
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2010, 04:33:05 AM » |
|
However, I have one question regarding loose/lose: how do you spell the opposite of "find"? since 'find' is a verb, then it's opposite would be 'lose'. Congratulations! Skwire found the intentional typo i posted in the above quote. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
skwire
|
|
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2010, 04:34:32 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
app103
|
|
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2010, 09:46:34 AM » |
|
There is one particular grammar mistake that really irks me: a/an usage. People that misuse them tend to fall into 2 groups: Native English speakers that tend to overuse "a". - Examples: a apple, a egg, a ice cream cone, a octopus, a umbrella
Non-native English speakers that tend to overuse "an". - Examples: an ball, an computer, an shirt.
The native English speakers bother me more than the non-native ones, since this is something you should have learned early on in grammar school. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
f0dder
|
|
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2010, 10:10:57 AM » |
|
app103: I learned the a/an rule with an excellent example: it's "a feast" - but "an excellent feast" food is good, food helps you remember. Oh, there's one thing I'm not 100% certain about, though: is the rule for choosing "an" that there's a vowel, or a " vowel-sound"? Iirc it's the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- carpe noctem |
|
|
|
app103
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2010, 10:15:31 AM » |
|
Oh, there's one thing I'm not 100% certain about, though: is the rule for choosing "an" that there's a vowel, or a "vowel-sound"? Iirc it's the latter.
Yes, it's based on how it sounds rather than how it is spelled. Examples: a house, an hour, a xylophone, an x-ray |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zridling
|
|
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2010, 03:45:57 AM » |
|
But a few days ago were you saying "Twenty-nine"? Or "Twenty-Oh-Nine"? Years ago I looked up what they called the first decade of the 1900s. Most used the term "aught," as in 19-aught-7, or "Back in 'aught-04' we ate dirt and were glad to have it!" I've since said 20-aught-1,2,3,... 9 to the quirky faces of my friends. You might also ask, will the same "TeeVee" people say "Twenty-one hundred fourteen" in the next century!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2010, 05:16:45 AM » |
|
Back in my Danish primary school years we had a Polish girl starting with us in seventh grade. She didn't know our language and really had to work hard to pass the tests. After merely 3 years she (almost) won a spelling contest, came in #2, out of 24 Danish students! It was still difficult to understand what she was saying, and maybe even more difficult for her to understand what we were saying, but after these merely 3 years her SPELLING was just about perfect. In the same way my English spelling probably is just as good as any American youngster's, even though it sometimes is quite hard for me to make myself understandable in English. I guess the first step is to learn how to spell those meaningless words, and only then you are able to learn what they mean. Maybe you cannot learn how to use what you don't know what is. I don't know.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 03, 2010, 05:18:39 AM by Curt »
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
mrainey
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2010, 08:14:29 AM » |
|
One of the problems with English is that there are no consistent rules for spelling or pronunciation. You can't look at a word and be certain. You pretty much have to rely on memorization.
I used to teach English to Spanish-speakers at the local community college, and it was tough for the the students (and me) to understand why, in English, words with different spellings were pronounced exactly the same. Examples are to-too-two, ate-eight, I-eye-aye, write-right-rite,would-wood, their-there-they're, bear-bare, and son-sun.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cyberdiva
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2010, 09:56:52 AM » |
|
One of the problems with English is that there are no consistent rules for spelling or pronunciation.
Yes! One of the classic examples is that in English, it is possible to pronounce ghoti as "fish": pronounce the gh like the gh in enoughpronounce the o like the o in womenpronounce the ti like the ti in nation  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tomos
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2010, 11:43:18 AM » |
|
Oh, there's one thing I'm not 100% certain about, though: is the rule for choosing "an" that there's a vowel, or a "vowel-sound"? Iirc it's the latter.
Yes, it's based on how it sounds rather than how it is spelled. Examples: a house, an hour, a xylophone, an x-ray just thinking about it, the 'y' sound is usually (always?) said with an 'a' a yulelog (whatever that is) a yoghurt dessert a yam also when it starts with e but sounds like y a ewe English is pretty weird all right when you look at it closely |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cranioscopical
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2010, 12:40:41 PM » |
|
One of the problems with English is that there are no consistent rules for spelling or pronunciation.
Yes! One of the classic examples is that in English, it is possible to pronounce ghoti as "fish": Shaw enough! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chris
|
|
|
|
