It's "than", not "then" (pedantry)
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
First let me say, cedric, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. However, since someone opened this can of worms, I'll venture a few comments about some of your posts.
About punctuation, josh3io: there are two generally accepted styles of punctuation--open, which uses few commas and is typical of journalistic style; and closed, which uses more commas and is frequently seen in more erudite writing, such as quality fiction and scientific writing. Naishou's punctuation in the sentence cited was perfectly acceptable closed punctuation.
Johnyboy32--"...got put into...." You forgot to pay your syntax!
Note that I used punctuation with that smiley. (Boy, glad I caught that before anyone else did.)
Tokyo James, the possessive form of who is whose, not who's (that's the contraction for "who is").
It's unfortunate that usage determines dictionary inclusion, but that's usually mitigated by qualifying words, such as Webster's New World describing irregardless as "nonstandard or humorous usage."
Please understand that I'm not trying to put anyone down. Oversights are easy when you're quickly hammering out a response on line. On no other occasion would I comment about someone's grammar, usage or spelling on these forums. And spell checkers are of limited use--for example, they'd never catch the to-two-too and there-their-they're errors. Only a grammar checker might do that. (Don't know, don't use them myself.) In context, the intended meaning is usually quite clear despite the error.
Again, as cedric pointed out, the object is communication, not denigration.
cal
About punctuation, josh3io: there are two generally accepted styles of punctuation--open, which uses few commas and is typical of journalistic style; and closed, which uses more commas and is frequently seen in more erudite writing, such as quality fiction and scientific writing. Naishou's punctuation in the sentence cited was perfectly acceptable closed punctuation.
Johnyboy32--"...got put into...." You forgot to pay your syntax!
Note that I used punctuation with that smiley. (Boy, glad I caught that before anyone else did.)
Tokyo James, the possessive form of who is whose, not who's (that's the contraction for "who is").
It's unfortunate that usage determines dictionary inclusion, but that's usually mitigated by qualifying words, such as Webster's New World describing irregardless as "nonstandard or humorous usage."
Please understand that I'm not trying to put anyone down. Oversights are easy when you're quickly hammering out a response on line. On no other occasion would I comment about someone's grammar, usage or spelling on these forums. And spell checkers are of limited use--for example, they'd never catch the to-two-too and there-their-they're errors. Only a grammar checker might do that. (Don't know, don't use them myself.) In context, the intended meaning is usually quite clear despite the error.
Again, as cedric pointed out, the object is communication, not denigration.
cal
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 65,827
Likes: 2
From: FCUK
Originally posted by calc
Tokyo James, the possessive form of who is whose, not who's (that's the contraction for "who is").
cal
Tokyo James, the possessive form of who is whose, not who's (that's the contraction for "who is").
cal
and bow down to your superior intellect 
As you so correctly point out, it is very easy to make mistakes and overlook the obvious........
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Tokyo James, I most emphatically don't claim (or agree that I have) "superior intellect." It's just that I made my living for years as a journalist, copywriter and technical writer, so I'm a little more aware of these things than most. If you've seen my posts elsewhere, you know that I'm constantly revealing my ignorance about things electrical and mechanical. I'm grateful that this forum exists and that there are so many people on it who are willing to be of help.
cal
cal
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
Originally posted by calc
Again, as cedric pointed out, the object is communication, not denigration.
Again, as cedric pointed out, the object is communication, not denigration.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 0
From: Palm Springs
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lvs2k
[B]I guess the two most common mis-usages that come to mind are (1), the use of the word impact (noun) as a verb. "How will that impact them?" instead of "What kind of impact will that have on them?"
(2) The use of the comparative "more".
[B]I guess the two most common mis-usages that come to mind are (1), the use of the word impact (noun) as a verb. "How will that impact them?" instead of "What kind of impact will that have on them?"
(2) The use of the comparative "more".
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Johnnyboy32--No, it was a mild and apparently unsuccessful attempt to keep things light: "pay your syn(sin)-tax."
And, if you were a woman, I'd say, "Ask not for whom the belle tolls." (groan)
cal
And, if you were a woman, I'd say, "Ask not for whom the belle tolls." (groan)
cal
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 65,827
Likes: 2
From: FCUK
Originally posted by calc
Tokyo James, I most emphatically don't claim (or agree that I have) "superior intellect." It's just that I made my living for years as a journalist, copywriter and technical writer, .........
cal
Tokyo James, I most emphatically don't claim (or agree that I have) "superior intellect." It's just that I made my living for years as a journalist, copywriter and technical writer, .........
cal
This was not intended as a serious comment and I was not trying to get at you, I was taking this at humorous level as I find the content of the thread quite funny.
All of my posts in this thread have been made tongue in cheek.