The spelling / grammar thread

[jackson1]

All your would'ves, could'ves and should'ves still sound stupid! No matter how they're written.

So "should have" sound stupid? You use "should of"? I sure hope you're kidding

[jackson1]

I have another one to be sorted out:

So "should have" sound stupid?

Should there be an "s" added to the word "sound" here? "..sounds" Why? Why not? More of the same:

There seems to be...
It seems to be...

[micha]

So "should have" sound stupid? You use "should of"? I sure hope you're kidding

Oh no, I don't, but we had a similar discussion about this should've-thing a while ago in another thread.
I simply didn't get the idea where "ve" sounds the same as "of". I'd never say something like "should of", and the other way round, I'd not get the idea to use "ve" in an "of"-situation either.

Maybe using "ve" just looks weird to me when it follows a consonant.
In a situation like should've, could've and alike I'd simply slur the h but keep the a of have, so could'ave would maybe read like I'd say it.
But "ave" doesn't sound similar to "of" in my book as well. :think:

Well, we agreed on that I speak like a robot IIRC and simply went on.
Should be the best thing to do here as well I guess...

[Twitch]

Heres one for you; how do you determine the plural form of a word that doesnt technically exist? For instance; pointy as used as a noun like it so often is around here. Would the plural form follow the traditional drop the y for ies, as in pointies, or just add an s, as in pointys? Both get the red squiggle of bad spelling, so which would be correct seeing that theyre both non-existent words?

[Endrik]

Los Pointidos

[Grandturk]

Pair.

Pare.

Pear.

Discuss.

Edit -Here's one:

I have two pears.
I have a pair of pears.
I need to pare down my collection of pears.

[amimbari]

go buy rosetta stone Henrik....but until then:

Aufenthalt mit Deutsch Henrik, Englisch fuck it's auch mit Mist gefüllt, um zu versuchen und es herausfinden

[amimbari]

1. wind - Short i sound
2. wind - Long i sound
3. read - Short e sound
4. read - Long e sound
5. abuse - with z sound
6. abuse - with s sound
7. addict - stress on ad
8. addict - stress on dict
9. combine - stress on com
10. combine - stress on bine
11. defect - stress on de
12. defect - stress on fect

or maybe:

1. byte, bite, bight
2. seen, scene
3. hear, here
4. sense, cents, scents
5. their, there, they're
6. feet, feat
7. ate, eight
8. err, heir, air
9. wheel, weal, we'll
10. you, ewe
11. isle, aisle, I'll
12. ale, ail
13. gnu, new, knew

this shit could go on forever......

[micha]

I will not buy this record, it is scratched.

[jackson1]

go buy rosetta stone Henrik....but until then:
Aufenthalt mit Deutsch Henrik

But I am NOT German, Mike!

[jackson1]

This thread is getting out of hand. More questions than answers. It's scary! And stressful.

[amimbari]

your not Danish? what are you then and what is your native language that I cant speak...?

[Nimitz]

"Me fail English? That's unpossible."

[RacerX]

you're not Danish? what are you then and what is your native language that I cant speak...?

Fixed. You're = you are. Hey , man, in this thread you are fair game.

[Newc]

HEAR/HERE:
Best way to keep these two in their proper place is to remember that you hear with your ear. Here denotes a location, and is related to where and there.

THERE/THEIR/THEY'RE:
Again, there is directly related to where and here, so it is only used to denote a location.
Their indicates ownership (i.e.it is their responsibility) so it is linked to heir, as in "heir to the throne".
They're always means "they are".

YOUR/YOU'RE:
These two are tricky to define as easily as those above, except to say that "apostrophe-r-e" always means "____ are" - "you are dog shit in my shoe" is incorrect. "Your dog shit in my shoe" is correct. Then again, I guess that exact line would depend on the context


As for plural words that do not officially exist e.g. pointys/pointies, this follows the same rules as similar words that do exist - i.e. drop the y to add ies.