Latest Terrorist attempt - Page 5

classicman · 12-30-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Ugh, in my head, I hate to add "to be."

I'm just the opposite, when I hear it without the "to be" its like nails on a chalkboard. <shrug>

Quote:

(My grandma used to say feesh for fish.) Definitely some regional differences.

My grandma used to say sang-witch for sandwich.

DanaC · 12-29-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

I don't think the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightening

Might be more correct. Whether or not it should be 'need' or 'needs', I'm not sure. Having used 'us' as a collective noun rather than a pronoun, need may be correct. That's an area I always find difficult. Like for instance 'a number of us were/was ...' My natural speech inclination is to use were in that instance, because I'm referring to multiple people. But 'a number of people' could be considered singular. Same with 'team'. The team was on time/the team were on time.

'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.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-29-2009, 02:16 PM

People that, is grammatically correct.
The car needs cleaned, is not. :p

Shawnee123 · 12-29-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

People that, is grammatically correct.
The car needs cleaned, is not. :p

People are WHOs, not THATs.

"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!

xoxoxoBruce · 12-29-2009, 02:23 PM

People I know are whos, people I don't know are thats. It's grammatically correct.:p

Shawnee123 · 12-29-2009, 02:13 PM

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.

DanaC · 12-29-2009, 02:16 PM

*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.

Shawnee123 · 12-29-2009, 02:25 PM

Hell I don't know. Could be. I'm not even sure I'm me, right now.

:headspins:

DanaC · 12-29-2009, 02:25 PM

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.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-29-2009, 02:28 PM

At least not as hard and fast as she is.

Shawnee123 · 12-29-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

At least not as hard and fast as she is.

Hard, not fast.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-29-2009, 02:33 PM

Not fast, Ms off-like-a-rocket? Pshaw.

Shawnee123 · 12-29-2009, 02:30 PM

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.

skysidhe · 12-29-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

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.

Oh that is the Tide commercial. That jars me too. It is because basic essentials seems redundant or maybe it has to do with a person who has nothing usually are reduced to living with basics or essentials.

I don't know.

Also,I think it is 'You need enlightening" and not needs but it's just because it feels right. lol

chrisinhouston · 12-29-2009, 02:45 PM

Given the statement then the correction by Janet Napolitano I thought this political cartoon from the Houston Chronicle pretty appropriate!

The NY Times said her gaff is just about as good as George Bush's "Heck of a job, Browie!"

12-29-2009, 02:16 PM	#3
xoxoxoBruce 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, 02:23 PM	#5
xoxoxoBruce 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, 02:13 PM	#6
Shawnee123 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, 02:25 PM	#8
Shawnee123 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, 02:28 PM	#10
xoxoxoBruce 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, 02:33 PM	#12
xoxoxoBruce 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, 02:30 PM	#13
Shawnee123 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, 02:45 PM	#15
chrisinhouston Professor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,857	Given the statement then the correction by Janet Napolitano I thought this political cartoon from the Houston Chronicle pretty appropriate! The NY Times said her gaff is just about as good as George Bush's "Heck of a job, Browie!" Attached Images

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)