[Micky C]

I'd bet $50 that if people keep saying "should of"/"could of", given enough time it'll actually become the proper way of saying/writing it! One day someone's going to write "should've" and the professional english teacher is going to say. "No Billy, that's wrong' it's should of, I don't know where you got the 've from." Just give it 100 years.

[Sangman]

Yeah that is how languages usually develop.

[The Commander]

Sangman, on 31 January 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Yeah that is how languages usually develop.

"Cras talkin comissationesque Willis"

[Jimmy]

Micky C, on 31 January 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

I'd bet $50 that if people keep saying "should of"/"could of", given enough time it'll actually become the proper way of saying/writing it! One day someone's going to write "should've" and the professional english teacher is going to say. "No Billy, that's wrong' it's should of, I don't know where you got the 've from." Just give it 100 years.

I bet it'd still be that teacher I had. I will never get over how much she sucked.

[Kathy]

I have a question. Am I typing it right?

"I wonder how much more would [SomeMovieTitles] make if they released [Whatever] versions(in 3d) and hyped it?"

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Helel, on 01 February 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

I have a question. Am I typing it right?

"I wonder how much more would [SomeMovieTitles] make if they released [Whatever] versions(in 3d) and hyped it?"

Personally I would omit "I wonder" and let the sentence read like this:

"How much more would Examples make if they released Examples versions and hyped them?"

[rasmus thorup]

Wouldn't you just need to put in "," between much and more? I'm a noob, just asking xD

[Inspector Lagomorf]

rasmus thorup, on 01 February 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Wouldn't you just need to put in "," between much and more?

No.

[rasmus thorup]

The Mighty Bison, on 01 February 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

No.

Ok.

[Micky C]

Sangman, on 31 January 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Yeah that is how languages usually develop.

Languages develop because some people are too dumb to understand a simple expression? I don't think they write things like "could of" because it's easier or faster, at least not in this case.

[Fox]

Micky C, on 01 February 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Languages develop because some people are too dumb to understand a simple expression?

Maybe. But also because the language is defined by how the people use it.

[Hank]

Micky C, on 01 February 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Languages develop because some people are too dumb to understand a simple expression? I don't think they write things like "could of" because it's easier or faster, at least not in this case.

Ah, let's pick on Micky C

shouldn't've - is this legal in written English? My pet peeve - live, life, prove, proof, proved, proofed, then, than - just read my posts, lol, you know what I mean. I'm not the brightest, I admit, but if you come to an English speaking country, no formal education, and hear something like "kuddev", how would you spell it?

[Micky C]

I thought school was compulsory for many years in a lot of developed countries?

[X-Vector]

Helel, on 01 February 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

I have a question. Am I typing it right?

"I wonder how much more would [SomeMovieTitles] make if they released [Whatever] versions(in 3d) and hyped it?"

Moving "would" to the position after "[SomeMovieTitles]" makes the sentence flow better.

Makes me think of another grammatical pet peeve of mine; using "not" on the wrong side of terms like "everything" and "everyone", which actually results in an misrepresentation of the intended meaning.
Example: "everyone was not there", where the correct phrasing should be "not everyone was there" - in the first instance no one is present, in the second one only a number of people are missing.
It's a hugely annoying grammatical error that unfortunately seems to have become rather prevalent in the US.

Another doozy from our friends across the Pond: replacing "to each his own" with "each to his [or their] own", which conjures up the image of a thousand Caped Crusaders shouting "to the Batmobile!" in unison.

[Jimmy]

Hank, on 01 February 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

shouldn't've - is this legal in written English? My pet peeve - live, life, prove, proof, proved, proofed, then, than - just read my posts, lol, you know what I mean. I'm not the brightest, I admit, but if you come to an English speaking country, no formal education, and hear something like "kuddev", how would you spell it?

Shouldn't've is very nonformal, but in my opinion completely acceptable, and a good example of a double contraction.

[X-Vector]

[Kathy]

From http://forums.duke4....post__p__120500

They did master in 480i because it...

1) would be shown on 480i TV
2) would have been shown on 480i TV
3) would had been shown on 480i TV
4) your variant

[Hank]

You have one image (not reposted) followed by the statement:

Mad Max RW, on 22 December 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

I have no idea who the artist is, but it's very much in the same style as Syd Mead's concept art for Blade Runner:

then you have two images following the selicolon.

There are two people that feel this statement is misleading, and three (and myself) that don't. What am I missing? The first part "I have no idea who the artist is" refers to the first image, therefore "it's" refers to the same image. Since the statement ends with a semicolon, the sentence is complete with two images. Not sure how this can be misleading anyone.

So all you grammar experts - let your voice be heard.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Hank, on 19 February 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

You have one image (not reposted) followed by the statement:

then you have two images following the selicolon.

There are two people that feel this statement is misleading, and three (and myself) that don't. What am I missing? The first part "I have no idea who the artist is" refers to the first image, therefore "it's" refers to the same image. Since the statement ends with a semicolon, the sentence is complete with two images. Not sure how this can be misleading anyone.

So all you grammar experts - let your voice be heard.

Mad Max RW was neither contextually nor grammatically incorrect. Those who found his statement to be misleading took his words out of context.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Quote

I'd like to know where did he actually saw pixels.

It's "where did he actually see" or "where he saw".

Not both at the same time.

[Kathy]

Yeah, I should have reviewed what I wrote. Such a silly mistake really.

Props to you for spotting grammar mistake faster than Micky C(if he's still watching me of course).