I can't take it anymore. (quote)

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by suzco

I wonder.

I wonder as I wander out under the sky...

[theatergypsy]

"What are the chances I'll win the lottery?" "Slim to none." WTH is that?!

None is not an option. "Slim chance." Yes. "Fat chance." Yes. But "None chance"? I think not.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Moonlady

As for catty-wumpus - well, I can't say that I've ever used it but it looks legit to me!

catawampus/cattywampus - The correct spelling of this term is 'cater-wampus' though two variant forms, kitty-wampus and katty-wampus, are often heard in our various regional dialects. Actually the word 'cater' comes from the French 'quatre' and thus the term originally meant 'four-cornered.' But by a process known to language students as 'folk etymology,' the ordinary users of the term thought they detected an analogy to the ordinary domestic feline. Hence 'cater' soon became 'catty' and eventually 'kitty.'
The variations on this phrase are too many to list, but our favorite has long been 'catawampus' or 'cattywampus,' a dialect term heard throughout the South, from the Carolinas to Texas. You'll often hear the expression: 'He walked cattywampus across the street,' and down in Tennessee a college president of mathematics was once heard to say: 'You might call a rhombus a catawampus square.'"
From acolourfulworld.blogspot.com

[wscottling]

As for "slim to none": the phrase is correct. One doesn't just divide up a combined subject or the object of a sentence to its individual parts and apply grammar rules to it. That's just a hold over from way back when people were applying Latin grammar rules to English. English is not Latin. For example "Me and Joe are going to the store" is perfectly okay to say even if you can't say "Me is going to the store." I know mothers and Grammar people everywhere twitch at "Me and Joe..." and they want to correct to "Joe and I..." because that's what we're taught from a very young age, but it simply isn't so. A combined subject does not and should not follow the rules of its individual parts. Just as you shouldn't divide the object of a sentence up and apply grammar rules to it. Someone could say, "Well, you have a slim chance of winning, or you have no chance of winning." Or they're perfectly correct saying, "Your chances of winning this are slim to none."

[Bunjee]

English isn't Latin but it is Germanic, and Germanic languages do have cases. I or Ich and me or mich aren't interchangeable, especially as sentence structure is flexible, so sentence meaning can get really confusing if you don't apply the case properly!

I don't have much problem with "slim to none" though. "Slim to zero" is better, but I get the replacement.

[suzco]

Would of, could of, should of - sure, that may be how it sounds when we speak.

When you're writing though, please write it as would have, could have, or should have.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by suzco

Would of, could of, should of - sure, that may be how it sounds when we speak.

When you're writing though, please write it as would have, could have, or should have.

Or rather would've, could've, or should've.

[suzco]

Originally Posted by suzco

Would of, could of, should of - sure, that may be how it sounds when we speak.

When you're writing though, please write it as would have, could have, or should have.

Originally Posted by PanTerra

Or rather would've, could've, or should've.

Yes. That works, and wouldn't make me cringe.

[Fred314X]

How about 'to' when the correct word is 'too.' That's pretty much an epidemic here on C-D.

[lizzyst]

"cacky shorts"