12-29-2009, 02:08 PM | #61 |
Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,206
|
From the guy who says "people that..." rather than "people who..."
You're not addressing "needs enlightened." To be = extraneous.
__________________
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby |
12-29-2009, 02:09 PM | #62 | ||
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Quote:
'needs enlightened' jars with me. I don't think 'to be' is exrtraneous. That said, I just automatically insert that as I read it, so it really doesn't matter and certainly doesn't need correcting for it to be clear. 'people that' as opposed to 'people who' is a matter of dialect as much as it is a matter of grammar. Perhaps your ommision of 'to be' is also a dialectical matter.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
12-29-2009, 02:13 PM | #63 |
Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,206
|
There was a day when I was very sure of my grammar skills. There was another thread in the cellar, the one about teams and such, that made me think differently. I don't remember anything from school!
I do remember something about "more nearly correct." REasoning was, you can't be MORE correct, so to say more correct is incorrect. It is "more nearly correct." I NEVER understood how that made more sense, or was more, ahem, nearly correct. I give up on grammar. Let's fight about terrorists again.
__________________
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby |
12-29-2009, 02:16 PM | #64 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
People that, is grammatically correct.
The car needs cleaned, is not. :p
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
12-29-2009, 02:16 PM | #65 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
*chuckles*
Actually, that makes sense. More nearly correct rather than more correct, I mean. I still find grammar problematic. Primarily because my natural dialect is very different from standard (Queen's) English. But also because unless I am writing an academic paper, I don't give it so much thought.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
12-29-2009, 02:19 PM | #66 | |
Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,206
|
Quote:
"Vegetables are sensual, people are sensuous." --Dean Wermer's wife (or is it the other way around?) And, to transpose, it would have been "the car needs cleaning" since I said "needs enlightening." I never said anything about cars being cleaned. I was talking about people being enlightened. Besides, I washed my car saturday and now it's filthy with road salt and road dirt and I bought new windshield fluid only to find no fluid is coming out and I was blind half the way home last night and, and, and... Now, see. The fucking terrorists WON!
__________________
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby |
|
12-29-2009, 02:23 PM | #67 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
People I know are whos, people I don't know are thats. It's grammatically correct.:p
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
12-29-2009, 02:25 PM | #68 |
Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,206
|
Hell I don't know. Could be. I'm not even sure I'm me, right now.
:headspins:
__________________
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby |
12-29-2009, 02:25 PM | #69 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Actually, either 'who' or 'that' is acceptable and both are and have been in use for pretty much as long as the English language has existed in its modern (or nearly modern) form. As a quick rule it's generally more acceptable to use 'who' with people and 'that' with objects, but that rule is far from hard and fast.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
12-29-2009, 02:28 PM | #70 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
At least not as hard and fast as she is.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
12-29-2009, 02:30 PM | #71 |
Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,206
|
It's my ear that (who?) hates it.
I heard a commercial for some charity the other day: "You never know how basic essentials are until you have none." Um, what? My ear picks up stuff it hates. I don't know if my ear is wrong or right most of the time. Stupid ear.
__________________
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby |
12-29-2009, 02:30 PM | #72 |
Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,206
|
__________________
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby |
12-29-2009, 02:33 PM | #73 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Not fast, Ms off-like-a-rocket? Pshaw.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
12-29-2009, 02:36 PM | #74 |
Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,206
|
Huh? Quick temper, maybe. Fast, not. Two entirely different things. A person that likes 'em fast should know the difference.
__________________
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby |
12-29-2009, 02:40 PM | #75 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
No, no, sloooowww ride, take it eaaasssyyy.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|