>would of
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
>would of
> doggy dog world
>>7722254
I read this one in a paper that I recently graded:
>the ability to be able to
>>7722276
Oh lawdy. I actually lol'd at that. People don't actually say this do they?
>>7722340
They do, they are a diamond dozen
>could of would of should of
>>7722276
>modern family
>any way
>>7722254
>could of
>>7722254
>the X that is Y
>>7722413
ayyy nigga who let that meme out the nursing home
>>7722254
>on accident
>wood of
>Improper use of "if I was"
>>7722440
example?
>10 items or less
>it was as if
>said
>the fact that
>irregardless
>and/or
>I could care less
>along those lines
>>7722487
I'm sorry
>>7722671
It sounds like you're trying to shoehorn a metaphor where it doesn't belong.
Not a written one, but . .
I recently discovered that the head of the English department and assistant principal for curriculum (former english department head) at the school where I teach pronounce "indefatigably" as "in-de-fa-TEE-gably".
>>7722708
nah
>>7722280
fuck, I feel like I've written this at some point
>>7722724
Nah what? I'm open to rebukes.
>>7722413
Completely forgot about Jessi Slaughter
Thanks anon
>>7722742
The "I'm sorry" was there because I can end up doing that whenever breaking into imagery.
>>7722604
Improper use or just the appearance?
Since I witnessed an absurd argument on whether irregardless was lexicaly proper- A grammar shark coming out rather dejected but still feeling 'it was a stupid word' I kinda like it and find myself using it yew kno?
>noone
>>7722254
>everyday used as a temporal noun/adverb
>their/they're/there errors
>confusing peak and peek
>spelling were as where
>for all intensive purposes
>affect/effect, especially effective versus affective
>using less for countably many objects instead of fewer
>themself
and the last one
>spelling waste as waist
Last one really makes my blood boil.
>for all intensive purposes
>>7722276
For some reason this makes me so happy
>>7722604
I understand why irregardless and I could care less are wrong, but what about the other ones?
>>7722719
is...that not how it's pronounced?
I was at a small gathering with my family a week ago. My grandma said "I could care less," to which I responded "it's 'couldn't care less.'" She said she would say it the way she wanted to, and I told her to go ahead and say it wrong. My mom got mad at me, but I reminded her of an earlier fortune cookie that said something about ignorance.
People are so stupid.
There/Their/They're and Your/You're fuck ups hurt me the most
>>7722604
>>7722487
>it was as if
>the fact that
>and/or
>along those lines
There is nothing wrong with these. I always avoid self-described "grammar nazis", because they're normally really petty people just looking for a way to feel superior. Does it actually anger you when you see somebody confuse "there" with "their"?
Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
>>7722604
Three of these things are not like the others.
What is supposed to be wrong with
>the fact that
>and/or
>along those lines
?
>The fact that he hadn't even reached the store yet was surprising.
>The candidate will win Kentucky and/or Tennessee.
>We can go for a Mediterranean theme, or something along those lines.
>>7722445
In place of the subjunctive.
>>7724126
This entire comment.
Also underageb&
>>7724240
>>The fact that he hadn't even reached the store yet was surprising.
That he hadn't even reached the store yet was surprising.
>>The candidate will win Kentucky and/or Tennessee.
The candidate will win either Kentucky, Tennessee, or both.
>>We can go for a Mediterranean theme, or something along those lines
We can go for a Mediterranean theme, or something similar
>>7724037
>themself
There is no reason why we shouldn't have a singular 'they' for unknown gender. It's especially frustrating online where you are forced to assume the gender of a user.
>>7724251
You have simply listed alternative ways to write each sentence, not offered any reason why the originals are wrong.
>With this regard, their currents turn awry
to
>
>>7724255
Damn formatting got fucked up there.
That's like correcting
>With this regard, their currents turn awry
to
>In relation to this, they change course
It's just another form of the same idea
>>7724253
We do. You just typed it. It's "they".
>>7724347
>"They were all by themselves"
Doesn't exactly translate well to
>"They were all by they"
Does it?
And yes, I know you could write it as they were alone, but being able to write something in more than one way doesn't make it any of those ways wrong.
>>7724339
It's not got anything to do with people being smart or stupid, you were being an asshole to your grandma for no reason. It's common courtesy to not act like an arrogant asshole in general, let alone to elderly family members that didn't do anything to you.
>my family doesn't loathe me.
I wouldn't be so sure about that anon.
>>7724362
Who cares? Wrong is wrong no matter who it is.
>>7722358
This hurts me on the inside.
>>7724373
Sure, and it may have been grammatically incorrect, but that doesn't make it right to be an asshole about it.
You were in the wrong there anon, by breaking basic conventions of courtesy and human interactions.
Your grandma didn't want you to correct her, gave no indication that she wanted you to, and then when she made that clear, you were a dick about it.
That's why people are posting the fedora pics, not because they can't understand how she was wrong.
>>7724256
Thus proving that there is no need to use those lazy forms of narrative.
>would of try and
>>7724456
>You were in the wrong there anon, by breaking basic conventions of courtesy and human interactions.
Once again I couldn't care less. Maybe if people didn't want to look stupid they'd say things correctly.
>using literally as figuratively
>>7724538
>someone hasn't checked their dictionary lately
literally has meant figuratively since 2011.
>>7724501
but there is no need to not use them. What a pointless and pedantic argument this was.
>>7724551
>implying it's less stupid because it's in the dictionary
Literally is now a synonym and an antonym for figuratively.
Makes sense.
Instead of teaching people the proper usage of words, let's just redefine them.
Literally retarded.
>>7724630
>words
>objective "real" meaning
>real
>>7724636
It's not about objectivity or what is "real".
It's about what makes sense.
Saying literally is the same as figuratively is
like saying smart is the same as dumb.
Or that objective is the same as subjective.
Or that real is the same as fake.
Antonyms should not become synonyms just because the public doesn't understand how to use the fucking word.
Ugh.
>free reign
>>7724660
>free rein
You know, "would of" is getting more and more used
I'm guessing that in less than 30 years, "would of" is grammatically correct
>>7722378
>anyways
>>7722254
>based off
>>7724238
>pre-Madonnas
fuck
>>7724238
Kek. Thanks for that mate
>>7722254
>oдeнь шaпкy
>пoзвóнит
>вooбщeм
Each fucking russian says that shit. EACH FUCKING RUSSIAN.
>>7725093
>шaпкy
>wanky
>>7725107
>wanky
>вaнькy
>Ivan
>Your and you're
>EVERY.SINGLE.TIME
It's like the world has changed the two words overnight and I'm the only one that has been living under a rock
>>7722254
>in and of itself
>>7725107
lol
>and but so
>>7724569
Ignore him, he just read Elements of Style, and now thinks that he has to abide by the rules.
Storytelling is storytelling, a'right!?
Yes, certain usages of grammar are more efficient for conveying the story, but you have to be an extreme of mean to be that concerned with efficiency.
This seems like a good thread to ask. I'm often confused about when to use the word "that". For instance:
He thought it was funny.
vs
He thought that it was funny.
Which is better? What is even the point of using the word "that" in these types of sentences?
>>7722254
>myriad of
>mfw every time people say "Anti-social" when they mean "Asocial"
>>7722276
>quote on quote
>>7725393
They mean the same thing. The word "that" is just useful to help clarify the meaning of a long sentence, where the reader might have forgotten that "what he thought" was coming up. Like:
He thought while scratching his head and peering over to his brother it was funny.
He thought while scratching his head and peering over to his brother that it was funny.
>>7724355
As with the non-reflexive form, the singular of themselves is themselves. Just like the singular of they is they.
>payed
>>7724238
Go home Rick, your drunk
>apart of
>>7722280
I mean the phrase "the ability to be able to" does make sense, i.e. To be able to to be able to. But it's probably redundant in most circumstances
>>7722353
Acknowledgements. To give off the impression. Instrumentality. Suffice to say. “The third-leading cause of death of both American men and women.” Positive for good. Alright. “This begs the question, why are our elected leaders silent on this issue?” To reference. To privilege, to gender. “DiBlasi’s work shows how sex can bring people together and pull them apart.” “Come in and take advantage of our knowledgeable staff!” “We get the job done, not make excuses.” In so far as. “Chances of rain are prevalent.” NO TRUCK’S. Beyond the pail. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Rule and Regulation Amendment Task Force. Further for farther. “The Fred Pryor Seminar has opened my eyes to better time management techniques. Also it has given real life situations and how to deal with them effectively.” Hands-on, can-do. “Each of the variants indicated in boldface type count as an entry.” Visualize, visualization. “Insert and tighten metric calibrated hexscrews (K) into arc (C) comprised of intersecting vertical pieces (A) along transverse section of Structure.” Creativity, creative. To message, to send a message, to bring our message to. To reach out to. Context. A factor, a major factor, a decisive factor. Myriads of decisive factors
Whats up with the recently boom of saying "honestly..." or "...to be honest" in real world conversation? I hear it so much. Why do people need to say they're being honest? And why are they starting to do this?
>>7722487
What's wrong with that, exactly?
>>7724646
There's actually a whole bunch of words that are their own antonym. It's a dumb practice, but 'literally' wasn't the first word that this has happened to.
>>7724362
Generally speaking common courtesy is for stupid people.
>>7722378
>the wind blows doesn't really matter to me
>to me
>>7725410
>saying quote/unquote in the first place
It's cringy and makes no sense, you don't unquote the quote before you say it
>>7726336
It's true, though. I didn't say common courtesy is stupid, I said it's generally stupid. You shouldn't use common courtesy, you should use common sense, correcting mistakes is not an act of hatred, it's an act of love.
>I PACIFICALLY asked for this one!
>>7725941
It gives the sentence an air of being reasonable. Also, it gives a bit more weight to what you're saying.
I agree it's a dumb trend, but it's basically a habit at this point.
>>7726356
People actually do that? I thought they said "quote", said the quote, then concluded with "unquote". Why the hell would you say "quote unquote" before the quote?
>>7722254
>alot
This may be a little random but how the fuck do you pronounce "asked"?
>>7726850
you don't. you say inquired instead. just like "drank". say imbibed.
>>7724551
>being a filthy descriptivist
>Humpford
>>7722254
Irregardless, its the same difference and I literally could care less for all intensive purposes so you're point is mute per say.
>>7726890
>In our modern society...
>Germanic languages
For what purpose.
>Today, we live in
hoard/horde confusion has always pissed me off the most and I dunno why
>>7722353
>>7724717
>Free rain
>>7726286
You're actually, legitimately acting like an autistic teenager. Common courtesy is for functioning members of society, and vital in pretty much every successful person's life.
>The thing is is that
Why does everyone say this?
Even educated people.
>>7722604
>hating on and/or
Pretty sure you forgot "w/out" too.
>>7724101
No. No it is not. It's more like indefattigably.
>>7725322
wut
>>7725093
nice выeбoны brah. for that, i'll oдeнy your жoпa on my хyй
>>7725409
No, they mean anti-social. This is because asocial behaviors such as not wanting to talk to people are seen by society as being anti-social in the correct sense.
>>7725410
I thought this until I was 19
And I'm not even stupid :(
Must be some sort of phenomenon
I want to believe
>>7724075
underrated
>>7724646
>english shouldn't change just because english speakers change how they speak
There's a reason that people can say they're doing good, there's a reason we have conjunctions, there's a reason that english is the way it is.
It changes. That's language.
>>7725941
Why did people start saying like a lot?
>>7722358
Isn't it slang though; coulda, woulda, shoulda?
That's what I thought. But I'm Australian so maybe there's that.
Or are you just saying the fact that someone uses "of" instead of "have" annoys you?
>>7726356
Yeah, I never under stood the " "logic of this.
>>7722413
I just quoted Jessi Slaughter yesterday and nobody got it! Nice to see some oldfag remembers.
>>7724075
Came to post this one. Bugs the shit out of me
>>7724238
>Pre-Madonnas
lost
>>7724529
If you mean 'full of prescriptivists', sure. At least most of the other comments are just personally calling out something they dislike, not relating stories about how they publicly shamed their own grandmother, got shut down by her, and then feuded with their family.
>>7726843
It's usually said quickly and intended to be derogatory toward whatever immediately follows. Something akin to air quotes or italicized single words. Also, no one fucking says unquote. In a formal setting, one might say end quote, but generally not.
>>7728030
Yes.
>>7728037
Why would anyone remember the unremarkable shit some teenage camwhore said? The father was the fun part.
>>7725322
Sorry if I misunderstamd, but what's the correct way to say this?
>should've came
>their
>should've went
fuck
You guys are a bunch of loosers
>>7725352
>but yet
>>7728061
Only guy in the thread that maid me laugh with my hole face
>>7725409
>everyone thinks schizoid means schizophrenic
>>7725352
subtle.
>>7726850
/æskt/
