Support NeoGAF

[snapty00]

Then -- Than
Its -- It's
Alright (Wrong) -- All right (Right)
Altogether -- All together
Anyway -- Any way
Everyday -- Every day
I will eat Jack. -- I will eat, Jack.
Definately (Wrong) -- Definitely (Right)
Alot (Wrong) -- A lot (Right)
May be -- Maybe
in to -- into
Anyways (Wrong) -- Anyway (Right)
"I will go", she said. (Wrong in U.S.) -- "I will go," she said. (Right in U.S.)
"Don't go there". (Wrong in U.S.) -- "Don't go there." (Right in U.S.)
"Hopefully, he will go." (Wrong) -- "I hope that he will go."
"We will be landing momentarily." (Probably Wrong) -- "We will be landing in a moment." (Probably Right)
Dose (Wrong) -- Does (Right)
SAT Test (Wrong) -- SAT (Right)
You'll need these: computers, cars, books, and etc. (Wrong) -- You'll need these: computers, cars, books, etc. (Right)
Intensive purposes (Probably Wrong) -- Intents and purposes (Probably Right)
The reason is because he wanted to do it. (Wrong) -- The reason is that he wanted to do it. (Right)


By the way, I'm not convinced that "could care less" is incorrect, anymore. It's become an idiom by the general consensus, and that's really what matters. If "could care less" is wrong then so is "it's raining cats and dogs."

 

[human5892]

Altogether -- All together
Anyway -- Any way
Everyday -- Every day

"Altogether", "anyway", and "everyday" are all legitimate words.

"I will go", she said. (Wrong in U.S.) -- "I will go," she said. (Right in U.S.)
"Don't go there". (Wrong in U.S.) -- "Don't go there." (Right in U.S.)

It depends -- if "there" and "go" are the end of the sentence that's being quoted, the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks. If not, the punctuation would remain outside, since it isn't part of the original quote.

Intensive purposes (Probably Wrong) -- Intents and purposes (Probably Right)

You're correct.

By the way, I'm not convinced that "could care less" is incorrect, anymore. It's become an idiom by the general consensus, and that's really what matters. If "could care less" is wrong then so is "it's raining cats and dogs."

Sadly, I think you're right. It's the same thing that's happening with the word "irony" -- it's used to describe so many unironic situations these days that I think its meaning will soon have to be changed just based on the concept of descriptive grammar.

 

[snapty00]

Guys, in those examples, when I didn't put if it was right or wrong, I was just stating that there was a difference between the two words. On the ones that were definitely right or wrong, I put that.

 

[Scrow]

:lol
This thread is great.

 

[snapty00]

I will eat Jack. -- I will eat, Jack.

I'm surprised nobody has picked out this one yet.

 

[human5892]

Guys, in those examples, when I didn't put if it was right or wrong, I was just stating that there was a difference between the two words. On the ones that were definitely right or wrong, I put that.

Oh, okay. I gots no beef with you, then.

(How's that one? )

 

[snapty00]

Okay vs. OK vs. ok

Fight!

 

[Error Macro]

Hmmm... I disagree on the second. I would say that if you were using "lot" as a noun, your way would be correct (i.e. "There is a lot of cars over on the corner"). However, if you say "a lot" meaning many, it should be "there are a lot of things." Unless, of course, there's no other subject, in which case: "there is a lot you should know." Whew! I hope that made sense.

Well, it definitely sounds better to my ears to say "there are a lot"; Hell, I'm quite guilty of saying this myself, all the time. But, as far as I can tell, there is only one proper usage of "a lot", and that is in a singular form.

*shrugs*

 

[beerbelly]

"Am doing fine....."

"I'm doing fine......"

 

[snapty00]

"A lot" is very gray territory. On the one hand, "a lot" is one unit of something, so it should naturally be always singular. In the past thirty years, though, the phrase has become synonmous with "much," so by today's standards, it could be argued that "a lot" should always be plural, unless "a lot" is specifically referring to a literal lot (such as a car lot).

This is why many people say "alot" now. In actuality, "alot" really makes more sense than "a lot" given the way we use the phrase. Of course, the problem is that it's not a widely accepted word and probably won't be for the foreseeable future. Unlike many slang words that are accepted as standard speech, teachers and even normal people are putting a lot of pressure on others not to use the word.

Informally, it doesn't really matter. Formally, you shouldn't be using "a lot," anyway. "A lot" is almost slang, although it's used by everybody.

 

[Error Macro]

Yes, I keep trying to tell myself to use "there are many" instead.

 

[FoneBone]

"prolly" -- just fucking stop it already.

 

[Archaix]

Three things, snappy. First, "I could care less" makes me want to stab the speaker in the eye much more than I previously desired. It's wrong, and you are wrong for supporting it. That said:

Momentarily can mean either "for a moment" or "in a moment", and is acceptable either way.

Finally, SAT no longer stands for anything. SAT test is technically correct, as they have dropped the previous Standard/Scholastic Aptitude/Assessment Test. Then again, I forget where I read that so I may be wrong. However, I'm with you on PIN Number, ATM Machine, and MAC Card(By the way, how the fuck did we go so wrong grammatically with this one piece of technology?)

 

[snapty00]

Three things, snappy. First, "I could care less" makes me want to stab the speaker in the eye much more than I previously desired. It's wrong, and you are wrong for supporting it.

It's not a matter of "supporting" it. It's generally accepted nowadays (and has been for a long time), so there's no reason to fight it, anymore. The fact that everybody -- and I mean, everybody -- entirely understands its meaning with no ambiguity is evidence of that. As an informal idiom, it doesn't create any problems.

Momentarily can mean either "for a moment" or "in a moment", and is acceptable either way.

No, this is generally not accepted. There is some debate about using it in that manner legitimately now, but most universities and usage panels still hold that using the word "momentarily" to mean "in a moment" is simply wrong. It has much less support than "I could care less," in fact.

 

[mashoutposse]

I could care less.

The fuck does that mean? It's meaningless in the context it is used by 99% of the population.

I couldn't care less.

As in, "I couldn't care less that you have the ability to care less."

 

[FoneBone]

Or "I could give a[n] [insert insignificant object]." Wrong.

 

[Mumbles]

I could care less.

The fuck does that mean? It's meaningless in the context it is used by 99% of the population.

That's an easy one, actually - it's supposed to be a sarcastic phrase. The emphasis is clearly different in the two phrases...

"I COULDN'T care LESS"

vs.

"I could CARE LESS."

 

[Ghost]

I should be "i couldn't care more".

 

[SaitoH]

I usually don't bug people about spelling and grammatical errors, because I am far from perfect, but two pet peeves of mine are; "alot" and "definately." Neither of which are words.

^w^

 

[Morbo]

Good topic, I just have one contribution to make.

there
their
they're

The above are not interchangable.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

a friend of mine turns into a homicidal maniac when she hears the term 'YOUSE' used instead of 'you' (and i am you.. and you are you and youuuuu)

example :

come on, YOUSE GUYS

*shudder*

i'll make it more (extremely) australian

CARN, YOUSE GOOOOYS!!

 

[Spiritreaver]

Lose and loose bother me quite a bit, and it's rather suprsing to see people do that. My guess would be because lose sounds more like "loose". Hence how 'choose' sounds like "choose" and is written like that, as opposed to chose. So it's easy to get confused.

 

[snaildog]

By the way, I'm not convinced that "could care less" is incorrect, anymore. It's become an idiom by the general consensus, and that's really what matters.

For your information it's only Americans that ever get it wrong. I think that goes for the phrase in the first post too. I swear, you guys do come across as pretty damn stupid sometimes; I'm not trying to flame, but that's the honest perception people get from things like this. Anyone with half a brain who thinks about the words "could care less" can tell that it's wrong.

 

[Archaix]

Can I jump back in and bitch about "could of"? It's not as horrible when people are speaking, but when they actually spell out the words "could of" instead of "could have", I wonder how the hell they actually type it without realizing how stupid they are.

 

[CajoleJuice]

"Loose" is the one that pisses me off the most. I see it way too much. For the love of God, you probably learned how to spell "lose" correctly in 2nd grade...

 

[Seth C]

For me it's when people pronounce 0 as o(oh).
Like 290 turns into two - nine - oh.

That's nothing. I work at a call center. Almost daily I have people tell me "and that's the number zero." Yeah, I figured that out. There is no letter zero, moron.

 

[Seth C]

Guys, in those examples, when I didn't put if it was right or wrong, I was just stating that there was a difference between the two words. On the ones that were definitely right or wrong, I put that.

Alright is now in the dictionary, though it may be listed as nonstandard.

Main Entry: al·right
Pronunciation: (")ol-'rIt, 'ol-"
Function: adverb or adjective
: ALL RIGHT
usage The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright -- Gertrude Stein>.

 

[Loki]

That's nothing. I work at a call center. Almost daily I have people tell me "and that's the number zero." Yeah, I figured that out. There is no letter zero, moron.

You've got to be kidding, right? :lol

 

[mashoutposse]

That's an easy one, actually - it's supposed to be a sarcastic phrase. The emphasis is clearly different in the two phrases...

"I COULDN'T care LESS"

vs.

"I could CARE LESS."

Yes; one is right, the other isn't.

Your explanation is also wrong; sorry. There's absolutely nothing sarcastic about "I could care less." 99% of people who use this phrase state it quite plainly and directly, with no shame of their dead-wrongedness. Even if taken as sarcasm, it's still meaningless.