Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that this is just one more example of people who don't read, or--at the very least--those who say things without having any clue regarding the actual meaning/origin of what they are saying.
A gaffe that, IMHO, falls into the same category, is, "all of the sudden", which I have seen with increasing frequency over the past couple of years.
I never saw a mangling of, "all of a sudden", until--perhaps--three years ago.
This is such an oft-used expression that it is hard to conceive of somebody who does not know how to use it properly, but...I am beginning to see this mistake more and more often.
I think that this is just one more example of people who don't read, or--at the very least--those who say things without having any clue regarding the actual meaning/origin of what they are saying.
A gaffe that, IMHO, falls into the same category, is, "all of the sudden", which I have seen with increasing frequency over the past couple of years.
I never saw a mangling of, "all of a sudden", until--perhaps--three years ago.
This is such an oft-used expression that it is hard to conceive of somebody who does not know how to use it properly, but...I am beginning to see this mistake more and more often.
I think that "for all intensive purposes" falls into that same category.
If it gets to the point when writers and editors at The N.Y. Times no longer know the difference between plurals and possessives, I think that those of us who care about grammar and usage should just give up the fight.
Well...guess what?
We have gotten to that point, as evidenced by this excerpt from a NYT bulletin that I received a little while ago:
The hardline conservatives aligned with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei placed at the back of the pack of six candidates, indicating that Iranian’s were looking to their next president to change the tone, if not the direction of the nation, by choosing a cleric who served as the lead nuclear negotiator under reformist Mohammad Khatami.
If it gets to the point when writers and editors at The N.Y. Times no longer know the difference between plurals and possessives, I think that those of us who care about grammar and usage should just give up the fight.
Well...guess what?
We have gotten to that point, as evidenced by this excerpt from a NYT bulletin that I received a little while ago:
The hardline conservatives aligned with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei placed at the back of the pack of six candidates, indicating that Iranian’s were looking to their next president to change the tone, if not the direction of the nation, by choosing a cleric who served as the lead nuclear negotiator under reformist Mohammad Khatami.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubi3
So, are they or are they not?
"....so if they're aren't working it's maybe a decent pay day...."
Quote:
Originally Posted by missik999
"Walla" again, this time on the House forum.
The horror. The horror.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
