It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The fallacy of flawed people and clichés

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

What annoys me is when someone otherwise well-spoken says "I could of..." instead of "I could have".




i think you'll find it's "i could've" instead of "i could have", have is shortened to 've, as in "i've". this is perfectly acceptable.




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Skyfloating

What annoys me is when someone otherwise well-spoken says "I could of..." instead of "I could have".




i think you'll find it's "i could've" instead of "i could have", have is shortened to 've, as in "i've". this is perfectly acceptable.


Two words put together like this and with an apostrophe are called contractions. Pieman is correct in this case



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

so don't go mouthing off to people misusing their word's, it just ain't right. its all the one so long as you get what they're sayin', just because you don't like it doesn't make it the wrong thing.


I was loving everything you were saying and how you were saying it up and until this last piece.

Yes! It is right to go mouthing off to those people, in my community, that speak my same language and my specific dialect when they mess it up.

Right it right. Wrong is wrong. And... the gray area is that space set aside for writers of stories and poetry. They are the only ones, with that creative license, who may manipulate language as they see fit.

We, on this site, are all writers and therefore, posesses that creative license to manipulate our language. However, my frustration is with the spoken language rather than the written one.

I specifically agree with that pet peeve of adding 'at' to the backs of sentences.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MichJJC
 


Ahh, but written work should be understood when written aloud, and thus surely should follow the same rules speech follows.

How be you? Is wrong whether it is spoekn or written, but either way you know what I mean... It is just as understandable when said aloud as it is written down. I was born in London and moved away when I was only one, yet I still use words like nout and my friends still say I speak quite like I'm from London.

So am I speaking wrong? No, I am speaking perfectly well for the place I was born.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


"I could've" is correct. "I could of" is not correct. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Yes I think he means...when people say 'could'v'e it often sounds like they are saying 'could of'. Especially if a long pause is left...



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


In speech they sound the same to me though, at least the english we speak here it does. I understood your original post to mean spoken word. But if it's written down that's definitely a mistake yep.

Side thought, this topic has made me think about all the different forms of english around and how I love the variety. People shouldn't get annoyed by a variation of english or the slang and accents people have, they rule



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


if someone says "could've" it's impossible to tell they are saying "could of", if a person is otherwise well spoken, as you said, you should assume it to be correct. at least that would be the polite thing to do IMO.

i should probably have qualified what i was saying by adding "if they are well spoken, i think you'll find....", i didn't mean to offend.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Wasn't there a new ''rule'' in the "Book of English Spelling / Grammar"?

I remember my English teacher telling me that contractions like I would've / could've were no longer allowed.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by -0mega-
 


I thought new 'rules' in English language were brought about by the way many many people speak. As is the way new words are added to the dictionary...


many teachers though say things like that in the sense that you shouldn't be shortening words like that in an English lesson, even if it is acceptable.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-
Wasn't there a new ''rule'' in the "Book of English Spelling / Grammar"?

I remember my English teacher telling me that contractions like I would've / could've were no longer allowed.




How long ago was this and where? I wonder if it's true, it can't be. Maybe the teacher doesn't understand the concept and tried to avoid teaching about it.


I wouldn't be surprised about this kind of change eventually. Seems less and less people grasp the concept, and instead of teaching better they change the curriculum to make students look like they're doing well in school. Bit by bit we're being dumbed down.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
i like the idea of a book of rules in english grammar and spelling, although i am a little dubious on what authority it could hold. english is a very fluid language and quite mongrolised, i doubt the ability of anyone to work quickly enough to codify it.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by the siren
 



Originally posted by the siren
The one on this site is not so much a "spell check" (wrong choice of words), as a "spelling mistake indicator". While you are typing, if you spell something wrong it should underline the word in red (just like in MS Word)


The one on this site does underline the misspelled word in red.


reply to post by pieman
 



Originally posted by pieman
if someone says "could've" it's impossible to tell they are saying "could of", if a person is otherwise well spoken, as you said, you should assume it to be correct. at least that would be the polite thing to do IMO.


You are correct with regards to the spoken word. However, I think he is referring to the written word.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the word "nonplussed". Traditionally, it means to be perplexed or disconcerted. In colloquial use within the United States, it has taken on an antipodal definition: to be unperturbed. It is now a very troublesome word to use in any medium.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by paperplanes
 


Funny that you should mention that word. The last time someone used it in conversation with me was my doctor, who said he was nonplussed at the results of a diagnostic test.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by paperplanes
 


Funny that you should mention that word. The last time someone used it in conversation with me was my doctor, who said he was nonplussed at the results of a diagnostic test.


Ooh, a fantastic example of how tricky the word can be. Hearing that would cause a bit of alarm for me
--I would be hanging on every word of the sentence that followed. Thank you for that.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
In the 1980s there was a handbook which included all the rules for the English language and was dumbed down for the average elementary school child. It was a great source of knowledge of more than just English. There were conversion charts of measurements, volumes and more. I haven't been able to find any revised editions, in all my travels, nor have I been able to find the original book used by my teachers. Maybe someone here has heard of it and knows where it can be found. The book I am referring to is coloured completely in yellow, though that may have changed and is called Basic English Revised Handbook.



new topics




 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join