# Plurals and apostrophes - do YOU understand them?!



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

In recent years the misuse of the apostrophe (that's one of these: ' ) has reached the point where it is almost universally used incorrectly. Please read this and also tell your friends so that we can reverse this ridiculous trend. Cut and paste it into an email and broadcast it!

An apostrophe is NOT used when something becomes plural (ie more than one). Here are some correct examples:

Four TTs (NOT four TT's)
three apples (NOT three apple's)
free range eggs (NOT free range egg's)
a few ideas (NOT a few idea's)

In other words for more than one (plural), you simply add an s. Job done. NO apostrophe.

Now, you DO use an apostrophe when you are referring to something belonging to something/someone else.

So:
Joe's TT is red.
The dog's breath smelt bad
a camel's back is humped
Dave's hat blew off in the wind
the TTforum's graphics have been improved
my TT's paintwork is scratched

Now, you may be thinking, what if we are talking about plural AND belonging at the same time? Easy, you do both, but this time adding the apostrophe AFTER the s. As in:

All hospitals' results must show improvement
At Crufts, four dogs' manners were unacceptable to the judges
Five of the TTs' engines had been modified
Racing events' results should always be published

Thanks for reading, now please, put into practice. Cheers.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

They are the least of the worries on here, demand UK English as the official forum language


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Sanctimonious git! :wink:

Actually within reason I agree, however language does develop and there are occasions where the apostrophe used incorrectly does actually help make sense. I think TT's looks more plural than TTs (which can also be misunderstood in the context of TTS or TTRS) and will use this even though it is technically incorrect.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

wallsendmag said:


> They are the least of the worries on here, demand UK English as the official forum language


:lol: I enjoyed that read. I agree with Andrew but we don't want to go there.

My TT is bright silver, by the way, not red (just a bit of light teasing repartee).

Joe


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

mighTy Tee said:


> Sanctimonious git! :wink:
> 
> Actually within reason I agree, however language does develop and there are occasions where the apostrophe used incorrectly does actually help make sense. I think TT's looks more plural than TTs (which can also be misunderstood in the context of TTS or TTRS) and will use this even though it is technically incorrect.




I' totall'y a'gree wit'h t'he underline'd sect'ion of' t'he quo'te ;-)

Charlie'


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

mighTy Tee said:


> Sanctimonious git! :wink:
> 
> Actually within reason I agree, however language does develop and there are occasions where the apostrophe used incorrectly does actually help make sense. I think TT's looks more plural than TTs (which can also be misunderstood in the context of TTS or TTRS) and will use this even though it is technically incorrect.


Not only that, it is grammatically correct, providing that the letters TT actually stand for something. For example, KO'd is correct.

Why? The apostrophe is used for omission as well as posession - both contractions and abbreviations. Although "TT's" (with the apostrophe denoting possession) is grammatically INCORRECT (in the possessive usage) it could be grammatically correct if TT is a contraction or abbreviation... you see? :lol:

In fact, the rule for capital letter abbreviations (e.g. TT) is that an apostrophe is NOT needed, unless there is a chance of misreading it. Whether TTs could be mistaken for TTS is the point here...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

It irritate's the borrock's out of me when people cant' get there spelling and punctuation correct... :wink:


----------



## alcanTTara (Nov 12, 2008)

mighTy Tee said:


> Sanctimonious git! :wink:
> .


+1 only without the :wink:


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

National Curriculum Level 4 includes use of apostrophes for omission and contraction. I taught it two weeks ago.

If you can't use them correctly, it means you are working below the national average of an 11 year old. Congrats.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Hark said:


> National Curriculum Level 4 includes use of apostrophes for omission and contraction. I taught it two weeks ago.
> 
> If you can't use them correctly, it means you are working below the national average of an 11 year old. Congrats.


As a criticism of my schooling (High School 1973-78) I was taught bugger all English. The only reason I have English O level and any ability what so ever is because I went back to night school in the early 1980s where I was lucky enough to have a brilliant tutor who taught me more in 30 hours than any school teacher ever did. Even then I accept my English is not fantastic.

When I see the ability of some here I wonder if the teaching of English in schools has improved?


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

mighTy Tee said:


> Hark said:
> 
> 
> > National Curriculum Level 4 includes use of apostrophes for omission and contraction. I taught it two weeks ago.
> ...


Wasn't meant as a personal criticism mate, hope it wasn't taken that way. Just pointing out where it fits in to education.

As it happens I started the lesson with a video clip that showed examples on the high street where apostrophes are used incorrectly. e.g. Market stalls: Apple's 99p each or Chip Shops 'Daves Chippy'.

They also stopped people in the street, and the majority of people could not spot the mistakes from the correct usage.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I think TT's can be forgiven as one generally does put an apostrophe in when following an abbreviation, which are in capitals. I expect it's largely a sub-concious thing.

And doesn't TT stand for Tourist Trophy (sometimes)?


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

I had to do a basic test today (reasons unimportant) and one of the questions asked:

If your basic rate is £5.73 and you get paid overtime at a rate £1 above basic rate, how much do you get an hour?

I honestly had to read and re-read the question (and all the others) to ensure I wasn't missing anything, they mark it on the spot and I got 100%, nothing to be proud of though as a vaguely inteligent 8 year old could have done it :lol: I was shocked ot hear that most people she had graded made quite a few mistakes.

People just don't care anynore, as long as the gist is communicated anything else seems excessive. I really dislike text speak in emails, posts etc, it is text speak, keep it in the texts ;-)

Charlie


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Dash said:


> I think TT's can be forgiven as one generally does put an apostrophe in when following an abbreviation, which are in capitals. I expect it's largely a sub-concious thing.
> 
> And doesn't TT stand for Tourist Trophy (sometimes)?


I write for a living - have done for 20 years, and certainly my colleagues and guys I know from other companies in the profession would not use an apostrophe when pluralising an abbreviation. For example, ICs, PIDs, LEDs etc etc. I don't see the last point you make? - that's an abbreviation confusion, not a grammatical one?


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I use correct English in texts just so the illiterati have to take longer to read it. :wink: I have to spend time translating theirs into English that I understand. :lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Charlie said:


> I had to do a basic test today (reasons unimportant) and one of the questions asked:
> 
> If your basic rate is £5.73 and you get paid overtime at a rate £1 above basic rate, how much do you get an hour?
> 
> ...


The answer is £5.73 an hour.

Unless you meant "...how much do you get an hour, if you are working overtime?" :roll:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

You missed out contractions. :wink:

I also write for a living and while I'm shit hot on grammaticals for work, as I'm in marketing, I also accept that the point of my writing is not to be so spot on grammatically that it becomes difficult to read.

Anything we write that can't be understood in seconds gets binned. So sometimes clients have copy guidlelines that fall outside 'correct' usage because they aid readability. i.e., e.g., Mr. et al all lose their full points for my main client.

On a marketing-related note: Tescos got pulled up a few years ago for a notable grocer's apostrophe - a poster with CD's in the headline.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Kell said:


> You missed out contractions. :wink:
> 
> I also write for a living and while I'm shit hot on grammaticals for work, as I'm in marketing, I also accept that the point of my writing is not to be so spot on grammatically that it becomes difficult to read.
> 
> ...


I saw a demo Sat Nav (TomTom) unit in Halfords ony last week, which proudly talked about "camera's".


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Kell said:


> Anything we write that can't be understood in seconds gets binned. So sometimes clients have copy guidlelines that fall outside 'correct' usage because they aid readability. i.e., e.g., Mr. et al all lose their full points for my main client.
> 
> On a marketing-related note: Tescos got pulled up a few years ago for a notable grocer's apostrophe - a poster with CD's in the headline.


Yeah sometimes punctuation looks like typographical litter. As a designer I'm always dropping it unless absolutely necessary to convey the message.

I also break rules when writing copy. And I love it. :wink:

cheers

rich


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > Anything we write that can't be understood in seconds gets binned. So sometimes clients have copy guidlelines that fall outside 'correct' usage because they aid readability. i.e., e.g., Mr. et al all lose their full points for my main client.
> ...


Same here. When I'm writing an ad, I'll begin a sentence with 'And', whereas I wouldn't do that for a press release.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ttsteve said:


> Same here. When I'm writing an ad, I'll begin a sentence with 'And', whereas I wouldn't do that for a press release.


 :wink:


----------



## ResB (Apr 17, 2005)

When I was at school, none of my teacher's turned up in a TT. More like a Volvo!

I must admit my grammar and spelling is appalling. And to be honest, I blame moving all over the country in my early years but it got significantly worse when I moved Yorkshire.


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

ResB said:


> When I was at school, none of my teacher's turned up in a TT. More like a Volvo!
> 
> I must admit my grammar and spelling is appalling. And to be honest, I blame moving all over the country in my early years but it got significantly worse when I moved Yorkshire.


Where did you move Yorskshire to? :lol:

Charlie


----------



## ResB (Apr 17, 2005)

Charlie said:


> ResB said:
> 
> 
> > When I was at school, none of my teacher's turned up in a TT. More like a Volvo!
> ...


See what I mean.  It was done intentionally so well spotted that man. In Yorkshire they miss words for no reason at all


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

ttsteve said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > I think TT's can be forgiven as one generally does put an apostrophe in when following an abbreviation, which are in capitals. I expect it's largely a sub-concious thing.
> ...


I was thinking that if it was an abbreviation, then different rules would apply, but if you're not supposed to use an apostrophe after an abbreviation, then it wouldn't make a difference.

I do not write for a living, and have never been especially good at it


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

On a related note...

Saw this on a friend of a friend's update on Facebook:



> and a think wu all narr who ya torkin aboot, a divnt see thu point in writen things like that bcoz then it jst shows that ya bovvad!x


Now I'm sorry, but in my book, that's borderline retarded.


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Many years ago the band Slade used to get stick over their song titles; Gudby t Jane, Cum on feel the noiz, etc. In comparison with that last example, they're highly intelligible!


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Kell said:


> On a related note...
> 
> Saw this on a friend of a friend's update on Facebook:
> 
> ...


Looks more like fluent pityacker to me :wink:


----------



## Gone (May 5, 2009)

I can use apostrophes well most of the time but there is one that bugs the hell out of me so maybe one of you guys can clear it up. The problem I have is with....

it's

For example the possesive case, "The dog was licking it's arse." Do I need an apostrophe here? I guess so because it is possesive.

Or what about "Its not important." As this is a contraction, I don't need one. Right?

I always think I've nailed it and then that bastard MS Word puts a squiggly red line under it.

:x


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Nope the wrong way around. The only time you use an apostrophe with it's/its is when it *is *a contraction. That is, if it would be correct to substitute it with it is. In this instance, the apostrophe acknowledges the missing letter.

Any other time, it's got no apostrophe.

'The dog licked its arse' is correct.

'It's not important' is corrrect.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

'My Grammar and I (or should that be my grammar and me?)' is a good reference book. And Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson, is actually a good read and talks about the history and development of English.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

wallsendmag said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > On a related note...
> ...


You know Pitmatic actually qualifies as a separate language?



> Those reasonably well versed in modern British culture may have heard of footballer Alan Shearer, or of actor Robson Green, or TV presenter Jayne Middlemiss, all of whom speak with a clear regional accent. The words they speak are mainly standard English, but they are spoken with a distinct Northumbrian accent.
> 
> Most British people are probably familiar with, and understand, the traditional Geordie war-cry of "Haway/Howway the lads!" and would accept that it is unique to Tyneside. The same is true for "Newcassel Broon Ale". These phrases are clearly different from standard English, but they are generally understandable, and they can therefore be classified as part of the north east of England's regional dialect.
> 
> ...


http://www.northumbriana.org.uk/langsoc/about.htm


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

Kell said:


> On a related note...
> 
> Saw this on a friend of a friend's update on Facebook:
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more.

It's not only retarded but embarrassing.

Saj


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Kell said:


> 'It's not important' is corrrect.


No it isn't. 'Correct' has two 'Rs'... :lol:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > 'It's not important' is corrrect.
> ...


Mine has two 'rs'.

It just happens to have another one. :roll:

In marketing terms it was a 50% extra free offer.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Kell said:


> > and a think wu all narr who ya torkin aboot, a divnt see thu point in writen things like that bcoz then it jst shows that ya bovvad!x
> 
> 
> Now I'm sorry, but in my book, that's borderline retarded.


It's worse than that. That's "go straight to 'special' class; do not pass GO, do not collect £200 from the benefit office".
Why on Earth would you spell "I", which has a big clue to its spelling in the sound, "I", as "a"? 
Why on Earth would you spell "know" which obviously ends with an "oh" sound as "narr"? 
The? Thu? 
bcoz? [smiley=smash.gif] 
You? Yoooou. YOOOOU. "ya". [smiley=stupid.gif] 
Bovvad? [smiley=kid.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]

How can anyone claim that GCSE results are getting better over the years when kids just aren't even taught the primary language of the country any more? Innit.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Kell said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Kell said:
> ...


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

ScoobyTT said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > > and a think wu all narr who ya torkin aboot, a divnt see thu point in writen things like that bcoz then it jst shows that ya bovvad!x
> ...


As Wallsendmag alludes to, it's because she's from Ashington (same as me) and she's spelling it how we say it.

So we do say 'ah' for 'I'. But just because you speak a certain way, doesn't mean you should write that way. Unless you're trying to prove a point.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

ttsteve said:


> In recent years the misuse of the apostrophe (that's one of these: ' ) has reached the point where it is almost universally used incorrectly. Please read this and also tell your friends so that we can reverse this ridiculous trend. Cut and paste it into an email and broadcast it!
> 
> An apostrophe is NOT used when something becomes plural (ie more than one). Here are some correct examples:
> 
> ...


Excellent read but plurals and apostrophes are only part of the problem. How about there and their, which often get mixed up. I think part of the problem is modern texting "language" :?


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

A3DFU said:


> ttsteve said:
> 
> 
> > In recent years the misuse of the apostrophe (that's one of these: ' ) has reached the point where it is almost universally used incorrectly. Please read this and also tell your friends so that we can reverse this ridiculous trend. Cut and paste it into an email and broadcast it!
> ...


You're right, but the apostrophes and plurals mix-up is by far the most endemic grammatical issue in Britain today. As I say, it's almost as if the rules applying to them have been switched over! Now is not the time (or maybe it is!) to totally re-educate people about English grammar, but getting apostrophes and plurals correct would go a long way. I think it's a sad indictment of how educational standards (particularly English) have dropped in recent decades (recent 'improved' exam results serve only to mask an industry/government fudge). When I was at school (60s and 70s) we would spend days learning such things and they would be regularly revisited, tested and hammered home. Soon after that, schools started teaching kids to write as they spoke. Whose idea was that?! It was then that the rot set in I think - plus latterly - and understandably - teaching attitudes when faced with pupil behavioral problems that they were powerless to act against. It's a ***k up, like a lot of other new 'liberal' thoughts and practices.


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

The English language is reputedly one of the most difficult to learn, I suspect that the subtle nuances of the language are partly responsible for that, however as said it is fairly widespread. I find that "to" and "too" are often confused.

I do tend to take the trouble to check my posts before I actually hit send, but despite that I readily admit to making errors, I am so bothered that if I spot it later I will change it ;-) I know Rich (Rusty) is as anal as I am about all this ;-)

I believe that as long as the message is clear, the odd error is forgiveable, but that said some of the utter drivel I read makes me want to scream ;-)

Charlie


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

I always assumed that the poor level of grammer displayed on the TT forum was due to a very large number of members not being native English speakers. Most comments come from intelligent successful individuals where the punctuation is weak, but the sentiments are not. There are of course exceptions and those using "street language" should be banned as they can easily damage the reputation of this forum. There are many forums where it is not simply the grammer that is poor.

My personal pet hate is the contraction of until to till. When I was at school in the early Eighties we were tutored in self expression, not grammer, but even I know that until becomes 'til. Unfortunately I believe that the language will enevitably bow to popular pressure and allow these inaccuracies to become official simply to allow those among us with a limited vocabulary to pass basic literacy examinations. Likewise their, there and they're will simple become there.

People that can't understand BASIC grammer and Mathematics shouldn't be allowed to leave school! They should stay there until they can read and write to a minimum standard, understand compound interest and that if you spend all your government handouts on **** and alcohol then there will be none left for contraceptives.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

There is nothing difficult about writing the English language. I was able to do it perfectly well by the age of 11. The only reason people of the younger generation now seem increasingly incapable of doing it is because our education system has simply stopped teaching them how. What we now see is the result of a misguided education experiment that worked on the principle that correct grammar wasn't really important.

Rubbish!

Language changes and develops over time - of course it does. All the time we stray away from what would be considered correct 'Queen's English'. And frankly there is no issue with that when you are speaking face-to-face with someone else. The reason for that, crucially, is that you are there to immediately clear up any misunderstandings in your communications. With the written word that is not the case. When you commit thoughts to writing you get only one chance to communicate your meaning. That piece of writing disappears off and then has a life of its own out of your control. Any confusion that you have built into it is perpetuated, again and again, and there's nothing you can do to correct it. That is why it is important to get it right the first time and why it is important that we all should know and understand the rules of grammar; so that when we pick up a piece of written word we will know _exactly_ what it was the author wanted to say.

We are losing that, sadly - and it's all just for want of trying. We just don't seem to care about our language any more and that is a tragedy in the making, because once it is lost and there is nobody left who knows how it should be then it is lost for good. Now that may sound somewhat alarmist, but day after day I am seeing posters displayed (which companies and organisations have presumably put a lot of effort and money into producing) which contain terribly obvious errors. If in even those circumstances people can't get it right then it is clear that knowledge is simply being lost.

Language is the one skill we have that sets us apart from the other species on this planet - it is what makes us human. Written language is the coner-stone of civilization. You'd think we'd cherish it rather more, wouldn't you?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

ag said:


> My personal pet hate is the contraction of until to till. When I was at school in the early Eighties we were tutored in self expression, not grammer, but even I know that until becomes 'til. Unfortunately I believe that the language will enevitably bow to popular pressure and allow these inaccuracies to become official simply to allow those among us with a limited vocabulary to pass basic literacy examinations. Likewise their, there and they're will simple become there.


Would it shame you to know that you're wrong here?

Till and Until are 2 completely different words. Whilst 'til is a perfectly acceptable contraction of until, the word till predates both.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/till_1?view=uk



> [Q] From Michael Kearns: I have always believed that the shortened form of until was 'til. However, my father recently asked me for my thoughts, as someone had tried to convince him it should be spelled till as in 'eight till late'. On consulting his dictionary, that was indeed the only definition that could be found. We would be very grateful if you could clear up this situation for us.
> 
> [A] The status of 'til versus until and till is often argued about and most style guides have something to say on the matter.
> The most common belief is that till is a shortened form of until. You can see how this could have grown up, but the truth of the matter is that till is by far the older word, being recorded from about the year 800, while it took another 400 years for until to appear in the language (it's a compound of till with the archaic Old Norse und, as far as, which also survives in the archaic unto). But the first sense of till was to, as it still can be, for example, in Scots and some dialects. Though the modern sense of till in standard English is always connected with time, this only appeared about 1300.
> ...


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> When you commit thoughts to writing you get only one chance to communicate your meaning. That piece of writing disappears off and then has a life of its own out of your control. Any confusion that you have built into it is perpetuated, again and again, and there's nothing you can do to correct it.


Hence all those misunderstandings when texting or e-mailing. I have known friends falling out with each other because of misinterpreted e-mails! :?


----------



## HighTT (Feb 14, 2004)

Nobody should post without first referring to the seminal book mentioned in my signature :roll: :wink:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Language is constantly evolving, just because it's less compliant to the standards some of us were taught (and the others of us failed to be taught, age dependent), does that really matter?

English, particularly in it's written form, is a nightmare beast of insane rules and exceptions. It doesn't work, and these rules have had to be put into place to try and explain something that has evolved from numerable different sources.

Perhaps we should re-visit the written language and replace words that don't make any sense to match how they sound. The old joke, how do you spell fish? Ghoti *gh* as in trou*gh*; *o* as in wom*e*n; *ti* as in na*ti*on.

Cough, plough.... http://www.i18nguy.com/chaos.html


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Dash said:


> Language is constantly evolving, just because it's less compliant to the standards some of us were taught (and the others of us failed to be taught, age dependent), does that really matter?
> 
> English, particularly in it's written form, is a nightmare beast of insane rules and exceptions. It doesn't work, and these rules have had to be put into place to try and explain something that has evolved from numerable different sources.


True, but all languages have their rules and exceptions. French is just as bad and has no rhyme or reason to a lot of it. It's just the way it is and that's that. If you want a simple language with fixed rules, that's easy to understand and has a limited vocabulary, then Latin's the puppy!

I was thinking about the language evolving thing recently, and I have to say I think it's just an excuse for declining standards. In any other form of evolution, things get better or more refined, with the possible exception of Terry's Chocolate Orange :wink: The current "evolution" of English is little more than a bastardization of the language which pisses on the spelling and grammar rules that _do_ remain, and is rooted purely in modern generations not being taught properly, not being "bovvered" and generally not giving a shit if people can understand what they're on about or not. That and a decline in teaching where it was deemed that it didn't matter how stuff was written, as what they were saying was more important. Great, if they can actually string a sentence together! Innit, like.

People don't write "your" instead of "you're" (or even "you'll") because it's an improvement or evolution, it's just because they don't know the language and can't be bothered to learn it. It must jar the language processing of the brain of anyone who can use these words properly. [smiley=book2.gif] Personally, I'm sick of having to translate the twaddle dialects written by so many people into real English - oh, they mean "I will", right, next word... These people know only a subset of English and expect the rest of us to understand what they mean. That's not evolution.

Listen to a chav talking, like, you know what I mean. It's like they only know a subset of like English innit, so you have to like... you know what I mean.

No, actually, Mr Chav, I don't know what you mean because you didn't finish your sentence and the rest of what you said sounded like the crazed musings of a drugged marmoset. When you have to play fill-in-the-blanks for people who have a vocabulary of about 20 words, then I really can't be arsed with them. Survival of the language fittest - THAT's evolution. :lol: :lol:


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

ScoobyTT said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > Language is constantly evolving, just because it's less compliant to the standards some of us were taught (and the others of us failed to be taught, age dependent), does that really matter?
> ...


Scooby, have to agree. Chav lingo seems to be derived from the street crimes, shootings and stabbings scene. Innit? havin a baf (bath), bovvad etc. I've got quite a west midlands accent, burrit doe stup me roitin proplee loik...

I believe English grammar is doomed. I can't see the way back, mis-use is so endemic, and worst of all, most people just don't care. It's not important to them. We live in a world where you are instantly judged by the bling on your arm and neck, not what's in your head.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

I say ban everyone that doesn't use proper grammer....

Yes all 10 of you can have great chats together
:roll:


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

ttsteve said:


> We live in a world where you are instantly judged by the bling on your arm and neck, not what's in your head.


That seems to be true unfortunately; especially where I live :? 
[little example: if I go into my local department store in jeans and trainers the shop assistants will look down on me. Usually I don't care and I just think "poor so-and-so" but sometimes I get very annoyed about their attitude]


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

The whole country teh same, I never get questioned by these people on a weekend with trainers and jeans on, yet try and nip into town after work with your shirt tie etc.. on and you get questioned by everyone oof the buggers.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Is that called role reversal? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------

