Oolite Bulletins

could at least add that "e" on the end so it doesnt look like different word.

Sarin wrote:

ClymAngus wrote:

"My dear sir, It is a good thing that I still think your a lunatic.

It really puzzles me why 90% of people on internet, including well educated, mature native english speakers write "you're" as "your".

Since "Eats, shoots and leaves" came out I think there is a general fear over the use of the apostrophe, and thus "if in doubt, do nowt" has become the maxim of the day. Better to use no apostrophe at all (some would claim) than look foolish by attempting to squeeze one in when where it's not necessary. The English language is in near constant flux, it is both a blessing and a curse, and it works quite well even if words are misspelled, replaced with not-quite-right synonyms - the gist is often still easy to derive!

I try quite hard to get my apostrophes right - it's and its my linguist nemesis (nemeses?) even in this post where I've used it, I had to mentally check that "it is" fitted and therefore, 'it's' was appropriate to use.

I have friends who now email me with text-speak, whereas I still find I write texts with full punctuation and grammar - when I paid per text this was horribly expensive!

I am quite allergic on "text-speak" especially in twisted interned form...I sometimes have to read it twice or three times to make any sense from it. When writing something like a story, it definitely should be avoided. In this case, you should remember that "you're" is a short for "you are". No apostrophs there.

And by the way (yay I avoided using it), "Eats, shoots and leaves" has no apostrophes, just comma. That is treated even worse on internet, poor grammar thing.

Yep, you're is a contraction of you are, so the apostrophe appears to replace the dropped letter 'a'.
However, for a bit of context, perhaps it was just a typo. Internet boards and emails are often rife with them, just because they are quick 'type it and send' messages.
In any case, surely 'your' for 'you're' isn't as bad as 'should OF' instead of 'should've'. I mean, it shouldn't even be pronounced 'should of'. You get the 'v' sound from 'have' - 'should have' contracted equals 'should've', as in
"I should've (should have) gone to work earlier". The sentence "I should of gone to work earlier" makes no sense.
And (ha!) no amount of linguistic change will ever make the usage legitimate/sensible. Hopefully, the centrifugal and centripetal effects on language use will soon see 'should of' banished to the far edges of use, whilst the correct usage will be drawn back to the centre.

Sarin wrote:

ClymAngus wrote:

"My dear sir, It is a good thing that I still think your a lunatic.

It really puzzles me why 90% of people on internet, including well educated, mature native english speakers write "you're" as "your".

Brash ignorance? I learned about that entire correct word for the correct sequence and the classic line "you'll just have to remember it", but quite frankly it all sounded like white noise to me then as it does now. Anyway why bother remembering something that people are more than happy to remind you about whenever the opportunity arises?

I have a cavalier attitude to the tzars of grammar. If that causes others to make more sweeping suppositions regarding other aspects of my personality and intellect, then that's fine by me. They are poorer for the assumption.

Their they're again with there guns. Prod.

But of course text speak is the crispy crust on Satan's festering left buttock.

ClymAngus wrote:

Sarin wrote:

ClymAngus wrote:

"My dear sir, It is a good thing that I still think your a lunatic.

It really puzzles me why 90% of people on internet, including well educated, mature native english speakers write "you're" as "your".

Brash ignorance? I learned about that entire correct word for the correct sequence and the classic line "you'll just have to remember it", but quite frankly it all sounded like white noise to me then as it does now. Anyway why bother remembering something that people are more than happy to remind you about whenever the opportunity arises?

I have a cavalier attitude to the tzars of grammar. If that causes others to make more sweeping suppositions regarding other aspects of my personality and intellect, then that's fine by me. They are poorer for the assumption.

Their they're again with there guns. Prod.

I'm amazed anybody gets hold of the English language who doesn't speak it natively (although non-English speakers who do speak it who I have discussed this with - say that English is actually relatively easy to learn to speak, more difficult to learn to read and spell and given our archaic and non-standard pronunciations I'm not surprised!)

"Reading books in Reading can be difficult" = "REEDing books in REDing can be difficult"

And Slough may rhyme with Bough (as in breaks), but Rough rhymes with Cuff, but not cough.

And of course, lest we forget: Two, Too and To (and Wear, Were, Where and we're) and the killer that is: There, Their and They're

And while the apostrophe give some indication of the contraction as in "They're" the contraction of "They are", I oft wonder about "won't", as it is the contraction of "would not"...

And I often now see "Till" (i.e. Keep going till the end), which seems to be eating into the usage of "Until" or as I often write 'til

DaddyHoggy wrote:

And Slough may rhyme with Bough (as in breaks), but Rough rhymes with Cuff, but not cough.

There are seven different ways to pronounce 'ough' in the English language. It's a tough one to teach.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

I oft wonder about "won't", as it is the contraction of "would not"...

I understand your wondering, especially as it's actually a contraction of "will not". "Would not" is contracted—rather regularly—as "wouldn't".

DaddyHoggy wrote:

And I often now see "Till" (i.e. Keep going till the end), which seems to be eating into the usage of "Until" or as I often write 'til

Without looking into any grammar resources I'd assume an americanism here.

By the way, one of the more annoying aspects of the English language for non-native speakers is that there is more than one of them. British English is not the same as American English, and it may depend on your place of origin which one you are taught. To make it worse, the American dialect has started to heavily influence the rest of the world, and I guess the British Isles are not exempt from that influence. And if you are learning English in let's say East Africa not even your teacher may be aware of what is British and what is American. Not even to mention that his/her pronounciation sucks anyway, so you will grow up with a more or less heavy African accent no matter what.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

I oft wonder about "won't", as it is the contraction of "would not"...

Doh!


Personally I really like this one:


I take it you already know
of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you
on hiccough, thorough, slough and through.
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps,
To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it's said like bed, not bead.
For goodness sake, don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat,
(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt)

A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there,
Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,
And then there's dose and rose and lose --
Just look them up -- and goose and choose,

And cork and work and card and ward
And font and front and word and sword.
And do and go and thwart and cart --
Come, come, I've hardly made a start.
A dreadful language? Man alive,
I mastered it when I was five.

Brilliant Kaks.

and Yes - well spotted both Cdr M and Kaks - i did indeed mean "will not" = "won't" not sure where my brain was when typing that...

DaddyHoggy wrote:

although non-English speakers who do speak it who I have discussed this with - say that English is actually relatively easy to learn to speak, more difficult to learn to read and spell and given our archaic and non-standard pronunciations I'm not surprised!

Unless Infocom's text adventures played a big role in your learning English. Of course you learned more words about weaponry and magic and what have you, so it wasn't always applicable at school... Ah, good times

maik wrote:

DaddyHoggy wrote:

although non-English speakers who do speak it who I have discussed this with - say that English is actually relatively easy to learn to speak, more difficult to learn to read and spell and given our archaic and non-standard pronunciations I'm not surprised!

Unless Infocom's text adventures played a big role in your learning English. Of course you learned more words about weaponry and magic and what have you, so it wasn't always applicable at school... Ah, good times

Infocom as in "Leather Goddess of Phobos" fame? Truly brain-bending adventures and puzzles - wonderful - large chunks of my pocket money were spent buying and failing to complete all but one of the Zork adventures on my C64!

DaddyHoggy wrote:

Infocom as in "Leather Goddess of Phobos" fame? Truly brain-bending adventures and puzzles - wonderful - large chunks of my pocket money were spent buying and failing to complete all but one of the Zork adventures on my C64!

Those are the ones My first one was Hollywood Hijinx, I bought it together with a friend and we played the two of us sitting in front of my C64, trying to make sense of the wonderful prose and suggesting ways to each other on how to make progress. In a way you could call that multi-player, maybe it's a way for Oolite as well

But we're trailing off-topic (It's pitch dark--you're likely to be eaten by a gruehuman). To get partly back on track though (through a maze of twisty little worm holes): Elite actually was the reason to buy a floppy drive which later enabled me to play the Infocom adventures...

maik wrote:

In a way you could call that multi-player, maybe it's a way for Oolite as well

Actually, I used to do just that. I invited a friend over and we spent all night playing Oolite. I got him hooked, but he hasn't joined these forums or gotten 1.74 yet.

Wow!!!! get you lot!!!

this thread turned into .... "return to the planet of the grammar nazis"

B