ALOT < NOT A WORD

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:22 pm

it is a LOT

furthermore,
they're: they're smart enough to use they're in the correct manner
their: I wish they would have attended their school and learned the correct usage of the word their.
There: All of those who do not know how to use these words properly go over there.

dash8dave · Post by **dash8dave** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:31 pm

BoostedNihilist wrote:it is a LOT

furthermore,
they're: they're smart enough to use they're in the correct manner
their: I wish they would have attended their school and learned the correct usage of the word their.
There: All of those who do not know how to use these words properly go over there.

to: Let us go to the store
too: It is way too hot for me
two: There are two of them

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:40 pm

BoostedNihilist wrote:I wish they would have attended their school and learned the correct usage of the word their.

I think you mean "I wish they had attended their school and learned the correct use of the word 'their'."

ragbagflyer · Post by **ragbagflyer** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:45 pm

And for the love of whoever you worship,

Your: belonging to you
You're: you are

I cringe every time I read that. It's not that f'n hard people! So much for 'professional pilots'.

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:53 pm

One that drives me NUTS:

Correct: He was lost and needed to become oriented to his situation.
Incorrect: He was lost and needed to be orientated to his situation.

Orientated is not a word.

Rudder Bug · Post by **Rudder Bug** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:56 pm

ragbagflyer wrote:And for the love of whoever you worship,

Your: belonging to you
You're: you are

I cringe every time I read that. It's not that f'n hard people! So much for 'professional pilots'.

Me too...and I'm french!

Another one I too often read here is "experiance".

RB

ragbagflyer · Post by **ragbagflyer** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:57 pm

bmc wrote:One that drives me NUTS:

Correct: He was lost and needed to become oriented to his situation.
Incorrect: He was lost and needed to be orientated to his situation.

Orientated is not a word.

Actually it is! They both are.

yeah yeah · Post by **yeah yeah** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:59 pm

Language evolves. Deal with it. LOL

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:08 pm

I try too dew my best, butt reely, not many people care about speling or grammer. Its just not that importent too sum.

It's the internets. That's the way it is these days.

-istp

Meatservo · Post by **Meatservo** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:17 pm

Another one:

Flammable= capable of burning
Inflammable = NOT capable of burning
Uninflammable=NOT A WORD

Anyone here read the short story "Flowers for Algernon"? It's upsetting that many people here spell like the guy at the beginning of that story, before he gets his "Operashun". The story was written in 1958, and was supposed to depict a man with an IQ of 68. He would fit right in here.

I think I owe Boosted Nihilist an apology for past bickering. I am as irritated by poor spelling by so-called professionals as he is.

ragbagflyer · Post by **ragbagflyer** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:21 pm

Meatservo wrote:Another one:

Flammable= capable of burning
Inflammable = NOT capable of burning

You might want to double check that one Meatservo! Man, this is even funnier than the initial post; that's two people posting their grammar pet peeves who are mistaken themselves

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:23 pm

Not that it's in my job description, but if it were, a resume spelt like this:

I try too dew my best, butt reely, not many people care about speling or grammer. Its just not that importent too sum.

It's the internets. That's the way it is these days.

'internets' or not, would go direct to garbage, without passing go. I suspect that many who do hire are of the same mind

Some of mine: Toe the line (Waterskiers get towed by a line) I should remain mute on moot points.

Oh, sure, Meat, wow us with your vast reading list. Next you'll be leavening your human resource rants with references to Leningen and the Ants!

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:30 pm

Lose is the opposite of win.

Loose is the opposite of tight.

(I've been guilty of this one before...

)

If you ever want to find out how messed up the English Language is; try teaching a five year old to read, write, and spell...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzYaZDK ... re=related

sheephunter · Post by **sheephunter** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:11 pm

hmmm, a hole lotta nollege on hear.

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:57 pm

Meatservo wrote:Another one:

Flammable= capable of burning
Inflammable = NOT capable of burning
Uninflammable=NOT A WORD

flam·ma·ble [flam-uh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective
easily set on fire; combustible; inflammable.

in·flam·ma·ble [in-flam-uh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
capable of being set on fire; combustible; flammable.
2.
easily aroused or excited, as to passion or anger; irascible: an inflammable disposition.
–noun
3.
something inflammable.
Origin:
1595–1605; < ML inflammābilis, equiv. to L inflammā(re) to inflame + -bilis -ble

—Related forms
in·flam·ma·bil·i·ty, in·flam·ma·ble·ness, noun
in·flam·ma·bly, adverb
non·in·flam·ma·bil·i·ty, noun
non·in·flam·ma·ble, adjective
non·in·flam·ma·ble·ness, noun
non·in·flam·ma·b·ly, adverb
un·in·flam·ma·bil·i·ty, noun
un·in·flam·ma·ble, adjective

Meatservo · Post by **Meatservo** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:07 pm

WHAT!!

Well, obviously, the word has been mis-used so often that it has entered the popular lexicon. You young people will say anything. I admit I didn't look it up in the dictionary; my father used to correct me for mis-using the word "inflammable". This would have been in the seventies. Things may have changed since then: I make it my business not to know. I wouldn't be surprised if words like "dissed" are in there now. You probably got that definition from an American dictionary.

SuperchargedRS · Post by **SuperchargedRS** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:13 pm

BoostedNihilist wrote:it is a LOT

furthermore,
they're: they're smart enough to use they're in the correct manner
their: I wish they would have attended their school and learned the correct usage of the word their.
There: All of those who do not know how to use these words properly go over there.

You should check these guys out, maybe they are looking for a moderator

http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/ev ... /340600179

Grammar Nazi :
Someone who believes it's their duty to attempt to correct any grammar and/or spelling mistakes they observe. Usually found hanging around Irc chatrooms hounding "n00bs".

Meatservo · Post by **Meatservo** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:13 pm

"Inflammable" is the original word picked up from French and has always meant "liable to catch fire". The French world itself orignated from the latin verb "inflammare" (to catch fire). At some stage in the English language evolution, some people may have begin to simplify it by saying just "flammable". So it is not the last which took a suffix, it is Inflammable which was shortened.
In French no such a shortcut exists.

I stand corrected. Crap. I HATE THAT.

Well, this is meatservo signing out to go eat humble pie. Damn you all.

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:15 pm

Inflammable is actually the original word

Usage note
Inflammable and flammable both mean “combustible.” Inflammable is the older by about 200 years. Flammable now has certain technical uses, particularly as a warning on vehicles carrying combustible materials, because of a belief that some might interpret the intensive prefix in- of inflammable as a negative prefix and thus think the word means “noncombustible.” Inflammable is the word more usually used in nontechnical and figurative contexts: The speaker ignited the inflammable emotions of the crowd.

*edit: beat me to it

SeptRepair · Post by **SeptRepair** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:43 pm

I have two peeves. First is when someone says they want SherbeRt. You know that ice cream wanna be stuff. There is no fricken R in Sherbet. The other is when the wife says she took some hamburger out of the freezer to Unthaw. First its ground beef and second to Unthaw something would mean to refreeze it.

V1 Rotate · Post by **V1 Rotate** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:48 pm

As a fan of the English language, I love this thread.

And also, the second month is pronounced FebRuary and not FebUary.

That is all.... well not even close.

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:53 pm

I'm going to print this out and mail a copy to our local

TV "news" broadcast.

I think in any one week period, they probably say ALL of these.... and more!!

Flybabe · Post by **Flybabe** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:54 pm

I don't know about people not caring about using proper grammar and spelling anymore. To me, lack of attention to grammar shows laziness and a total lack of concern on how you come across to others. Doesn't matter if we "get" what you're trying to say, it's just.. well.. lazy. Accidental typos are one thing, I make them too. It's blatant disregard for the english language.

It's just MY opinion, though. You all can do whatever you want!

One of my pet peeves, after the use of "lose" and "loose" posted above, is the incorrect use of apostrophes. Grr! Makes me want to yank my hair out, lol!! Good thing I'm not a teacher!

Also to add:

Drownded
Spayded
Tomarrow
etc. etc. ad nauseum

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:56 pm

Heyyy....

How about "chimley"??

I always figured we never saw Santa as kids because he couldn't find the CHIMNEY at our house.....

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:14 pm

I think I owe Boosted Nihilist an apology for past bickering. I am as irritated by poor spelling by so-called professionals as he is.

Ahh servo

I just like arguing for the sake of it sometimes, accepted and reciprocated.
(p.s. my facebook pics are *REALLY* boring)

My standards are not ridiculous however seeing alot and allot twice in the same post really aggravated me this morning...

GOTS < NOT A WORD

ALOT < NOT A WORD

ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD

Re: ALOT < NOT A WORD