|
To "prolly" or not...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:24:53 GMT, sf > wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:46:18 -0600, Gar > wrote: > > >> What drives me nuts, and is actually on topic is the word "supper." >> I don't know why but it hurts my fingers to type it and my ears to >> hear it. Doesn't everyone know you have dinner. >> >> Gar <----running and ducking > >That's okay, Gar, I agree. I'll have to re-think my opinion then. I must be wrong. Gar |
To "prolly" or not...
Frogleg wrote: >"Endured"? Not to be snippy, but I'll > wager we *all* make mistakes. The only reason I wrote the word "endured", was because a recent houseguest mispronounced those three examples several times during a weeks' visit. You're right. I make many mistakes, and hopefully, will always appreciate correction so that I can learn and improve. >It's not just Shrub who says "newcular" -- > in fact, it's so common that I (even *I*) > have to think before saying. I know that many people say "newcular", but I expect something better from the president. Surely he has advisors to coach him. As someone downthread remarked, they may think it's 'folksy' or 'down-home', but I don't see it as an asset. Elaine |
To "prolly" or not...
Jeff Bienstadt wrote: > > Katra wrote: > > ... > > > > I still hate billboard signs that don't spell right. I think it is bad > > for our kids spelling skills! > > > > The gas station I go to has printed signs on the pumps: > > "Do to driveoffs, please pay first" > > After about six months, I saw that on at least one pump, someone had > scratched out "Do" and written "Due". > > ---jkb > > -- That was funny. ;-D K. |
To "prolly" or not...
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:14:03 -0600, Gar <> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:24:53 GMT, sf > wrote: > > > >That's okay, Gar, I agree. > > I'll have to re-think my opinion then. I must be wrong. > > Gar LOL! I had to think long and hard before agreeing with you. Practice safe eating - always use condiments |
To "prolly" or not...
I know that many people say "newcular", but I expect something better from the president. Surely he has advisors to coach him. As someone downthread remarked, they may think it's 'folksy' or 'down-home', but I don't see it as an asset. Elaine Agreed - I find it rather disturbing. The man who has the power to launch thousands of nuclear weapons...and can't pronounce 'nuclear'.... |
To "prolly" or not...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:27:32 GMT, sf > wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:14:03 -0600, Gar <> wrote: > >> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:24:53 GMT, sf > wrote: >> > >> >That's okay, Gar, I agree. >> >> I'll have to re-think my opinion then. I must be wrong. >> >> Gar > >LOL! >I had to think long and hard before agreeing with you. That's ok Barbara, I agree. :-) Gar |
To "prolly" or not...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:47:20 -0600, Gar
> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:27:32 GMT, sf > wrote: > > >On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:14:03 -0600, Gar <> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:24:53 GMT, sf > wrote: > >> > > >> >That's okay, Gar, I agree. > >> > >> I'll have to re-think my opinion then. I must be wrong. > >> > >> Gar > > > >LOL! > >I had to think long and hard before agreeing with you. > > That's ok Barbara, I agree. :-) > > Gar <snork> Practice safe eating - always use condiments |
To "prolly" or not...
|
To "prolly" or not...
"Craig Welch" > wrote in message
... > On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:46:18 -0600, Gar > > wrote: > > >What drives me nuts, and is actually on topic is the word "supper." > >I don't know why but it hurts my fingers to type it and my ears to > >hear it. Doesn't everyone know you have dinner. > > Given that dinner and supper are altogether different, what are you > trying to say? > > -- > Craig But they are not altogether different - check your dictionary. Dinner is defined as the main meal of the day taken at midday or in the evening. Supper is the evening meal. So, a meal can be both dinner and supper at the same time - which in the US is almost always the case because the evening meal is the main meal. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
To "prolly" or not...
My picky-pick for instant "oh, no" is with those that spell no one as
though it is one word: noone. =A0=A0=A0Picky ~JA~ |
To "prolly" or not...
Craig Welch > countered in message
... > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:24:58 -0800, "The Ranger" > wrote: > >My pet peeves for common abuse are "can not" (it's "cannot" > >or "can't"), > There have been some fine examples of mis-use in this thread. That > is not one. 'Can not' is quite acceptable. "Can not" is an accepted use, but you should use "can not" when the 'not' forms part of another construction such as 'not only.' The Ranger |
To "prolly" or not...
In article >, "The Ranger"
> writes: >Craig Welch > countered in message .. . >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:24:58 -0800, "The Ranger" > >wrote: >> >My pet peeves for common abuse are "can not" (it's "cannot" >> >or "can't"), >> There have been some fine examples of mis-use in this thread. That >> is not one. 'Can not' is quite acceptable. > >"Can not" is an accepted use, but you should use "can not" when the 'not' >forms part of another construction such as 'not only.' Using "can not" is archaic and is considered barely acceptable in modern usage. Oxford cannot contraction of can not. Both the one word form cannot and the two word form can not are acceptable, but cannot is far more common in *all contexts*. --- ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- Sheldon ```````````` "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter