# PEDANTIC B*ST*ARD



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

F.F.S. Can't you get it right..... 

BREAK - part by force, shatter, burst, destroy

BRAKE - Instrument for retarding motion of a wheel on a vehicle.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

People in glass houses....

I'll be watching very closely. :wink:


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

bass and base


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Twat and twaite :lol:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Chicken and egg

eh have i missed something [smiley=vulcan.gif] [smiley=clown.gif] :wink:


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

Guy said:


> F.F.S. Can't you get it right.....
> 
> BREAK - part by force, shatter, burst, destroy
> 
> BRAKE - Instrument for retarding motion of a wheel on a vehicle.


Is this why so many people get 'rear ended'?? Perhaps a copy of the OED should be sent to all drivers of novas, micras, etc.....

H :roll:


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Loose - not tight

Lose - to mislay an object


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

Hay, inglish woz neva mie pherst langwich anywey.

Gym.


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

"Bare with me" - no chance, unless you're damn hot and of the appropriate gender...


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I like to break my TT hard, but I am worried that if I do so, I may actually brake it for good.


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

I had food on the plain but it was quite plane. Then I broke a window pain and felt considerable pane. I think this is the principle principal, don't you?

Gym.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

....except when you accept a lift from a stranger, when the incidence of incidents of this type are not that uncommon.:wink:


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

Your all having a laugh with you're witty words, but their are also example's of people who cant get there apostrophe's in the right plaice... :lol:


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

Can we make this a FAQ?


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

QuackingPlums said:


> Your all having a laugh with you're witty words, but their are also example's of people who cant get there apostrophe's in the right plaice... :lol:


Now that's a user name I really like. Does it rhyme with anything?

The reign in spain falls manely on the plane........ See diction is me strong point!
[smiley=jester.gif]

Gym.


----------



## Lowlife (Feb 13, 2004)

It's - it is
Its - belonging to it

Grrr.

And people who "Try and" do something!

AND the OED for giving in to "Under the circumstances" when "Circumstances" is derived from the same root as "Circum", meaning "Around", therefore one can only be "In" circumstances.

Twats.


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

Lowlife said:


> It's - it is
> Its - belonging to it
> 
> Grrr.
> ...


And people who start sentences "and......" :lol: What would you do under those circumcisions? :?

Jim.


----------



## Lowlife (Feb 13, 2004)

It's a fair cop!

I'll cut off my foreskin.


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

Lowlife said:


> It's a fair cop!


Shurely "its"......

H


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

Hannibal said:


> Lowlife said:
> 
> 
> > It's a fair cop!
> ...


Don't call him Shirley! [smiley=gorgeous.gif] It'll give 'im a complex. :lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I cannot believe you are getting the usage of "it's" and "its" wrong...

Quick lesson?

IT'S (with an apostrophe) has 2 main uses. The first is to imply ownership (eg. "it's ball", "what is it's name?") and the second is to substitute for a missing letter (eg. "it's raining" or "it's a fair cop").

An example of using ITS (without an apostrophe) is the sentence "the mouse is on its own" - where neither implied ownership nor letter substitution are apparent.

If you are going to be pedantic, at least get the fucking rules right...


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

jampott said:


> I cannot believe you are getting the usage of "it's" and "its" wrong...
> 
> Quick lesson?
> 
> ...


Bet you read through that post to see if you had any mistakes in it before hitting the post button. Oh and I am sure someone will be along soon to point out some small, but noteworthy, inaccuracy. Funny lot on this sort of thing arenâ€™t we?

Does Nova net do this sort of thang?


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

jacTT225 said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot believe you are getting the usage of "it's" and "its" wrong...
> ...


Hehe... was this deliberate to provoke a response?

*Its* is the possessive pronoun; it modifies a noun.

*It's* is a contraction of *it is* or *it has*.

*It's* is never used to imply ownership, and is one of those quirky exceptions to the rules that actually makes English so hard to learn.


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

... and yes, "It's a fair cop" was correct the first time


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

QuackingPlums wrote:
'It's is never used to imply ownership, and is one of those quirky exceptions to the rules that actually makes English so hard to learn.'

How about:
'It's owned by the TT Forum.' :?:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

QuackingPlums said:


> jacTT225 said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


The apostrophe is always used to imply ownership. For example "the dog's ball" or "the childrens' toys".

Would you care to point me to a website which proves that the word "it" is a separate case, and that "it's" as an ownership modifier is incorrect?


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

jampott said:


> The apostrophe is always used to imply ownership. For example "the dog's ball" or "the childrens' toys".
> 
> Would you care to point me to a website which proves that the word "it" is a separate case, and that "it's" as an ownership modifier is incorrect?


The reason why *its* is used for ownership rather than *it's* is because it is (or it's... haha) a possessive pronoun, to *modify* a noun. When you use an apostrophe in your examples, the words "dog" or "children" are nouns.

*Its* falls into the same category as his, hers, yours and ours... all of which need no apostrophe. I'll find a website link if you insist, but trust me... *it's* true


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

Here we go:

http://academic.reed.edu/writing/gramma ... r_its.html

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/el/t ... rophe.html (Golden Rule #2)

http://www.dreamwindwhispers.com/grammar.html

http://efn.hud.ac.uk/studyskills/grammar.html

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/ ... apost.html

Still reading? 

Ok, how about a rhyme to illustrate?

The language lapse that drives me into fits
is using "it's" when what one means is "its."

It isn't asking much, it isn't oppressive,
To learn "its" is a pronoun; the possessive.

Nor, need one be a great linguistic whiz
To know that "it's" is short for "it is."

Why must so much catastrophe
result from one apostrophe?

 8)


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

NOT using "it's" for ownership is a recent thing.......

the contraction of "it is" used to be "tis", and even when this stopped being in "general use", the usage of "it's" as both possessive and contractive were equally correct.

Language may have evolved into your pronoun usage, but Shakespeare didn't use it thus


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

Well grammar is bollocks anyway if you ask me... but this *IS* the pedantic b*stard thread, so I thought I'd chuck in my two cents... 

The other thing that annoys me is the "split infinitive" rule, which is only a rule because some numpty decided back in the 18th century that because this structure was not permissible in Latin, it shouldn't be permissible in English. The fact that this structure just doesn't exist in Latin seemed to pass him by.

In Latin, verbs are givin different meanings by inflecting their endings, whereas in English we just add additional words ("go boldly", "run quickly") - in Latin the infinitive is just one word, which is pretty damn hard to split, so the situation where you'd split it just never arises. Since in English we have two words, why the hell not allow it to be split? 8)


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

QuackingPlums said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > The apostrophe is always used to imply ownership. For example "the dog's ball" or "the childrens' toys".
> ...


I've always wanted to know that.........most informative. :idea:

Do either of you know when the apostrophy goes after the end of the word? Like "Childrens' toy" versus "Children's toy"?

Jim.


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

jimfew said:


> I've always wanted to know that.........most informative. :idea:
> 
> Do either of you know when the apostrophy goes after the end of the word? Like "Childrens' toy" versus "Children's toy"?
> 
> Jim.


You use the apostrophe after the s to denote possission for plural nouns ending in s.

So for your example, *children* is the plural noun, so to denote possession you would write *children's*. 
e.g.: "Those are *children's* toys"

However, *kids* is a plural noun that ends in s so to denote possession you would write *kids'*.
e.g.: "Those are *kids'* toys"

Oh, and of course for names ending in s:
"Those are *James'* toys"

Whilst I'm here, I've just thought of an exception to the "*apostrophes are not required for possessive pronouns*" rule:
We do not need apostrophes for the basic possessive pronouns (his, hers, yours, ours, etc) but we do need them for possissive pronouns that end in _-one_ or _-body_
e.g.: "They must be *somebody's* toys" or "*Everyone's* toys are on the floor"


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I worry about you lot sometimes - you're all worse than bloody women! :roll: :?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

jacTT225 said:


> Oh and I am sure someone will be along soon to point out some small, but noteworthy, inaccuracy. Funny lot on this sort of thing arenâ€™t we?


To reply to my own point...

Eh... YES


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

^Abi^ said:


> I worry about you lot sometimes - you're all worse than bloody women! :roll: :?


Hi Abi,

I am sure we can plumb the depths, far, far worse than women........ :!:

Now, when exactly do I put an i before the e? :?

Jim.


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

jampott said:


> If you are going to be pedantic, at least get the fucking rules right...


And if we want to be ironic, what should we do?

H :roll:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Hannibal said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to be pedantic, at least get the fucking rules right...
> ...


Wear your underpants outside of your trousers?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

jampott said:


> Hannibal said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


Actually... Hang on, that's "bionic". I always get those mixed up 

Talking of which, I pretty much always use the rather "American" (and probably uneducated) "me either" instead of "nor me" or "me neither". No real sense behind it... I know its wrong, it's just an affectation


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

QuackingPlums said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > I've always wanted to know that.........most informative. :idea:
> ...


This is entirely correct. I thought everyone was taught this at school?

Anyway, the pass rate at english O level (or whatever this Gov't is currently calling them), has improved so drastically in recent years under Tony Blair, I am surprised that _anyone_ shouldn't understand correct use of grammar and the apostrophy. Whether or not they care to use it is another thing... :wink:


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

Perhaps the posts on this topic should be forwarded to the Department of Education?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Guy said:


> Perhaps the posts on this topic should be forwarded to the Department of Education?


Well I really feel that someone should first update us on split infinitives, double negatives and the appropriate use of hyphening. :wink:


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

I've already thrown in my two cents on split infinitives (page 2)... anybody rising to the challenge of the other two?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

QuackingPlums said:


> I've already thrown in my two cents on split infinitives (page 2)... anybody rising to the challenge of the other two?


I cannot not comment on split-infinitives or in-correct hyphenating...


----------



## hudson (May 18, 2003)

Bollocks

Ken Livingston


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

It's not just breaks [sic] !


----------

