officious grammar thread

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
Hooligan
Legendary Member!
Posts: 887
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: officious grammar thread

#31 Post by Hooligan » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:21 pm

much grammar
very nazi
wow

Code: Select all

Signature removed 

User avatar
slenderman
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:44 am

Re: officious grammar thread

#32 Post by slenderman » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:03 pm

Do people really say "on accident" and "heighth"? :shock: :wallbash:

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: officious grammar thread

#33 Post by monotonehell » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:08 pm

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.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
spiller
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: officious grammar thread

#34 Post by spiller » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:29 pm

my wife is from yankee land and says "on accident" all the time.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: officious grammar thread

#35 Post by monotonehell » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:48 am

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.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3620
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm

Re: officious grammar thread

#36 Post by Waewick » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:25 am

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.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: officious grammar thread

#37 Post by [Shuz] » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:04 am

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.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)

Re: officious grammar thread

#38 Post by Maximus » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:11 am

[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... :(
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: officious grammar thread

#39 Post by [Shuz] » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:33 am

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.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3064
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne

Re: officious grammar thread

#40 Post by rhino » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:46 pm

This just strolled through the ether and on to my screen, it's absolutely brilliant


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

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: officious grammar thread

#41 Post by monotonehell » Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:42 pm

rhino wrote:This just strolled through the ether and on to my screen, it's absolutely brilliant
Like.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

Hooligan
Legendary Member!
Posts: 887
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: officious grammar thread

#42 Post by Hooligan » Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:53 pm

Weird Al is awesome.

/thread

Code: Select all

Signature removed 

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: officious grammar thread

#43 Post by Wayno » Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:21 pm

grammar-police.jpg
grammar-police.jpg (55.43 KiB) Viewed 8226 times
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: officious grammar thread

#44 Post by monotonehell » Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:48 pm

Wayno wrote:...
like
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6391
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Traffic volumes

#45 Post by Norman » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:27 pm

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?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests