Comments for Language Rules http://languagerules.wordpress.com Definately Fixing Alot Of Americas Grammar 1 Word At A Thyme Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:06:31 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Language Problems: ‘4 Years(‘) Experience’ by Christopher J. Helbert http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/language-problems-4-years-experience/#comment-6527 Christopher J. Helbert Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:06:31 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/language-problems-4-years-experience/#comment-6527 Apostrophes are used in time expressions such as 3 years' insurance (also called 'temporal expressions'). In a temporal expression, the apostrophe is positioned before the s for single units of time and after for multiple units of time. Source: http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/apostrophes_in_time_%28temporal%29_expressions.htm Apostrophes are used in time expressions such as 3 years’ insurance (also called ‘temporal expressions’). In a temporal expression, the apostrophe is positioned before the s for single units of time and after for multiple units of time.

Source: http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/apostrophes_in_time_%28temporal%29_expressions.htm

]]> Comment on Could of, should of, would of by Jerk too http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6525 Jerk too Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:14:26 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6525 Glaringly inane and stupid...a clear manifestation of the user's lack of attention paid to his (or her) third grade English teacher. And a linguist would actually rationalize this? Glaringly inane and stupid…a clear manifestation of the user’s lack of attention paid to his (or her) third grade English teacher. And a linguist would actually rationalize this?

]]> Comment on Could of, should of, would of by Jerk too http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6524 Jerk too Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:08:38 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6524 As long as we do not belong to the knuckle-dragging ignoramus class to which I believe people who insist on butchering the language in this manner belong, I am ok. But the fear is that soon enough, only the ignoramus class will remain... As long as we do not belong to the knuckle-dragging ignoramus class to which I believe people who insist on butchering the language in this manner belong, I am ok. But the fear is that soon enough, only the ignoramus class will remain…

]]> Comment on Could of, should of, would of by as http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6523 as Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:16:21 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6523 totally wrong in my opinion.. just looks stupid if you write "should of".. like a 3 years old talking... totally wrong in my opinion.. just looks stupid if you write “should of”.. like a 3 years old talking…

]]> Comment on “Moot point,” not “mute point” by James http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/moot-point-not-mute-point/#comment-6522 James Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:52:42 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/moot-point-not-mute-point/#comment-6522 "Moot point" Moot - 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point. 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. 3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. Makes perfect sense, way more sense than "mute point"... 1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance. 2. not emitting or having sound of any kind. 3. incapable of speech; dumb. Something "becoming a moot point" means that it is no longer of value, any further discussion is purely academic because the result either way is meaningless. Something "becoming a mute point" makes no sense whatsoever, to say that the point is silent is too huge of a stretch. A "point" is not a sound, it's an idea, so how can you silence it unless you metaphorically stretch the definition of sound. I could see saying "they muted the point" if someone suppressed speaking about an idea, but that's not the general usage and you still wouldn't say, "they turned it into a mute point" even in that case. “Moot point”

Moot -
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

Makes perfect sense, way more sense than “mute point”…

1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance.
2. not emitting or having sound of any kind.
3. incapable of speech; dumb.

Something “becoming a moot point” means that it is no longer of value, any further discussion is purely academic because the result either way is meaningless.

Something “becoming a mute point” makes no sense whatsoever, to say that the point is silent is too huge of a stretch. A “point” is not a sound, it’s an idea, so how can you silence it unless you metaphorically stretch the definition of sound. I could see saying “they muted the point” if someone suppressed speaking about an idea, but that’s not the general usage and you still wouldn’t say, “they turned it into a mute point” even in that case.

]]> Comment on Could of, should of, would of by Mister X http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6521 Mister X Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:58:53 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6521 Strawmanning isn't your forte, 'madbandril'. This is, *have* course, nothing to do with mixing up words - it is a question *have* not *of*ing recognised that the "'ve" on the truncated forms *have* "Would have, could have, should have." sounds more like "of" than a shortened "have". Strawmanning isn’t your forte, ‘madbandril’. This is, *have* course, nothing to do with mixing up words – it is a question *have* not *of*ing recognised that the “‘ve” on the truncated forms *have* “Would have, could have, should have.” sounds more like “of” than a shortened “have”.

]]> Comment on Could of, should of, would of by Mister X http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6520 Mister X Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:53:32 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6520 The "would of course say" is itself standard but incorrect, it should *technically* have a comma before and after it; "would, of course, say" The “would of course say” is itself standard but incorrect, it should *technically* have a comma before and after it; “would, of course, say”

]]> Comment on Could of, should of, would of by Mister X http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6519 Mister X Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:50:20 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/could-of-should-of-would-of/#comment-6519 It shouldn't be taken lightly. It's a shambles. It shouldn’t be taken lightly. It’s a shambles.

]]> Comment on Language Problems: ‘4 Years(‘) Experience’ by SuperNessa http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/language-problems-4-years-experience/#comment-6518 SuperNessa Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:46:14 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/language-problems-4-years-experience/#comment-6518 If 'worth of' is left out between 'years' and 'experience', I would have thought that the phrase has been contracted (whether of one year's or multiple years' worth of experience), so therefore an apostrophe would be required. I agree Joanna, the price of good punctuation is eternal vigilance :-) If ‘worth of’ is left out between ‘years’ and ‘experience’, I would have thought that the phrase has been contracted (whether of one year’s or multiple years’ worth of experience), so therefore an apostrophe would be required.

I agree Joanna, the price of good punctuation is eternal vigilance :-)

]]> Comment on Fewer vs. Less by googcho420 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/09/08/fewer-vs-less/#comment-6517 googcho420 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:51:43 +0000 http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/09/08/fewer-vs-less/#comment-6517 go cho your my how i love you and yes you are corret :):):) go cho your my how i love you and yes you are corret :):):)

]]>