> who's
> whose
I've seen even literate people mistake those.
>>53901539
>literate people
Literate people don't make mistakes like that.
who is whose who's who?
>>53901570
> I could care less
I've seen even literate Yanks say that.
>implyn literall anyone cares how you spell words like they're or who's when context literally tells people what you mean
>>53901640
>yanks
>literate
>>53901539
>it's
>its
>>53901667
I was speaking in relative terms, eh.
>should of
>is is
>>53901712
POO
> Yanks panicking when they hear OBJ-SUBJ-VERB
>>53901712
should of is valid in american dialect though tbqh
>>53901640
"I could care less" isn't wrong, though.
>>53901794
It is when it's used as a bastardisation of "I couldn't care less", and I haven't seen it used as anything else.
>>53901640
>what is an idiomatic phrase
>>53901846
I honestly could car less.
>>53901846
>53901846
i could of just not replied but you're commenting, its getting really hard to ignore but honestly i could care less
>>53901846
I honestly could care less what a "Swede" has too say.
>>53901539
>på
>>53901777
No, should've is.
Also nice trips
>>53901886
> "Swede"
You are simply frustrated that foreigners speak better English than you.
>swedish
>white
I've seen smart people make that mistake many times
dumb weaaboo
>anime
i would cut your face off and paint "who's face" on it
>>53901539
>people sometimes mistype homophones
STOP THE PRESSES
>>53901983
>homophones
>>53902009
if you pronounce "whose" and "who's" differently, you're doing it wrong famiglia
>>53901539
I use the wrong they're, there, their all the time. I know what they each mean, it's just a weird reflex.
Same with two, too, and to.
I don't even use the right one by accident, it's just whatever I mean to say I'll use one of the other two.
>>53902065
You're retarded
>>53902050
You're retarded. One is pronounced like "hoes".
>>53901539
>mistake those
>those
Better get back to speaking Somalian because you're no good with English either.
>>53902103
they're both pronounced /huz/. you can check the IPA on dictionary.com if you want 2bh
>>53901936
Have you ever been described as "high functioning"?
>>53902237
please redpill me on på
for the longest time I always thought it only meant "on" but then I saw a sign that read "djuren på Wenngarn" and learned it can also mean at and in... are there any other words for at, in, and on or is på the only one?
>>53902223
Wrong faggot. It's like "hoes going to the store."
Do you really pronounce them both the same? How do you know when you're using whose or who's?
>>53902283
"På only means 'at' when it cannot mean 'on top', usually when talking about abstract concepts rather than physical objects that one may be on top of. For 'at' in a truly spatial sense, use vid."
Why don't you just Google it?
>>53902403
we could have had serious discussions, anon
>2016 AD
It's AD 2016. And, no, AD doesn't stand for "after death."
>>53902471
IT WAS ALL A CLEVER RUSE :^)
