Grammar Discussions

[Deleted member]

Not that it's especially difficult, but this on the NZ herald site today : Are you a grammar champ or a grammar chump? Take the quiz to find out - Lifestyle - NZ Herald News

 

[JessicaTam]

Not that it's especially difficult, but this on the NZ herald site today : Are you a grammar champ or a grammar chump? Take the quiz to find out - Lifestyle - NZ Herald News

Dang. 15/16.

 

[Hvr]

Dang. 15/16.

Me too. I wonder if you got the same one wrong as me? The her/she question?

 

[andye]

Lots of them were spelling rather than grammar which made it easier than it might have been

 

[JessicaTam]

Me too. I wonder if you got the same one wrong as me? The her/she question?

Complements/compliments I am ashamed to say.

 

[coriander]

Scored 16/16.

 

[JessicaTam]

Scored 16/16.

Smarty pants!

 

[RooFlyer]

Ho hum. 16.

Try these.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Not that it's especially difficult, but this on the NZ herald site today : Are you a grammar champ or a grammar chump? Take the quiz to find out - Lifestyle - NZ Herald News

Bah! 16 trivially easy. Bit their probably discreet responses

 

[Warks]

Here's something I see all too often and I am sure a lot of people are saying this:

“No one regulates or looks into this at the moment and unless it is looked into, the agendas are bias.”

People seem to not understand the word should be 'biased'. You see and hear 'prejudiced' as 'prejudice' too. "Your just prejudice."

From

Chinese communities in Australia resent China’s rising influence

 

[JessicaTam]

Here's something I see all too often and I am sure a lot of people are saying this:



People seem to not understand the word should be 'biased'. You see and hear 'prejudiced' as 'prejudice' too. "Your just prejudice."

From

Chinese communities in Australia resent China’s rising influence

Considering this is the grammar thread, I reckon I can do this:

Do you mean "you're"?

 

[cove]

Thank you Jessica. How about the use of then and than as well as to and too or was it two?

 

[get me outta here]

I notice fewer and fewer people correctly abbreviating ' you are'. Perhaps more people should start writing 'you are' in full so that they know that their grammar is not letting them down in correspondence. Notice I did not say 'less and less' people.

Also, it would be good if people knew that the keyboard had single and double quotation marks for a reason. Rant over.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Also, it would be good if people knew that the keyboard had single and double quotation marks for a reason. Rant over.

Well yes, but the need for doubles (UK English) is not that common.

 

[tuapekastar]

Curious as to what people think of this one. Am I just being picky, or am I perhaps just plain wrong (and I'm sure, despite contributing to this thread on occasion, that there is plenty I get wrong)?

It has long irked me (just in a small way, no real stress involved ) when people say something like "he has had more kicks today than anyone on the ground" (referencing a football match) or "(s)he has asked more questions in the Senate this year than anyone" (referencing those people in CBR). In each case the word 'else' (after 'anyone') has been omitted, making the statement not logically possible. How could the footballer have had more kicks than himself? Ditto the polly and questions asked.

 

[JessicaTam]

Curious as to what people think of this one. Am I just being picky, or am I perhaps just plain wrong (and I'm sure, despite contributing to this thread on occasion, that there is plenty I get wrong)?

It has long irked me (just in a small way, no real stress involved ) when people say something like "he has had more kicks today than anyone on the ground" (referencing a football match) or "(s)he has asked more questions in the Senate this year than anyone" (referencing those people in CBR). In each case the word 'else' (after 'anyone') has been omitted, making the statement not logically possible. How could the footballer have had more kicks than himself? Ditto the polly and questions asked.

Good point; I hadn't considered that before.

 

[get me outta here]

I agree with your logic. And no, you are not being "picky". As the grammar thread, it is our prerogative.

Curious as to what people think of this one. Am I just being picky, or am I perhaps just plain wrong (and I'm sure, despite contributing to this thread on occasion, that there is plenty I get wrong)?

It has long irked me (just in a small way, no real stress involved ) when people say something like "he has had more kicks today than anyone on the ground" (referencing a football match) or "(s)he has asked more questions in the Senate this year than anyone" (referencing those people in CBR). In each case the word 'else' (after 'anyone') has been omitted, making the statement not logically possible. How could the footballer have had more kicks than himself? Ditto the polly and questions asked.

 

[Warks]

Considering this is the grammar thread, I reckon I can do this:

Do you mean "you're"?

I put that in deliberately to show how the person who doesn't know the difference between prejudice and prejudiced wouldn't know 'your' from 'you're' either.

Sorry for the trap. I wouldn't make that mistake on this thread, of all threads!

 

[Warks]

Actually I'm kind of surprised when someone actually gets it right these days.

I remember watching some TV show or movie once where a character opens a suitcase and inside is a ticking bomb and a note saying "You're dead". I was thinking the sort of moron who'd make a bomb would be more likely to write "Your dead". I really wasn't caught up in the drama it seems.

 

[TheRealTMA]

I put that in deliberately to show how the person who doesn't know the difference between prejudice and prejudiced wouldn't know 'your' from 'you're' either.

Sorry for the trap. I wouldn't make that mistake on this thread, of all threads!

Ah. I wondered if you were trying to be even more clever and that you were actually not setting a simple trap since "your just prejudice" could have also been indicating that the person did indeed have a prejudice and that it could be considered just. Not a wonderful sentence construction but still valid in some prose.