For Stilleto...a grammar pet peeve...

[chris302001]

Woulda coulda shoulda, I got no problem with those. They're just slang, not outright ungrammatical. "Would of" makes no sense, it's an ignorant misunderstanding of "would've", which is short for "would have" not "would of".

As for "'bout", that doesn't bother me either. Nor does "'course".

You think logically. I like that.

 

[Mr. dB]

You think logically. I like that.

I just think there's a difference between casual language and ignernt language.

 

[chris302001]

I just think there's a difference between casual language and ignernt language.

I agree.

 

[samoth]

dont be a know it all know nothing and well be fine. the fucking dictionary says its a word - regardless of your description, which means when someone uses it they are not incorrect in their terminology - and you think because you say so im incorrect? me providing proof of its being a word as categorized by websters dictionary means using it does not make someone incorrect. please, get over yourself. its in the dictionary. fact. its categorized and defined as a word and should be accepted as is defined.

You two are arguing different topics. She's arguing grammatical correctness, and she is right. You are arguing something you pulled off an internet web site, automatically putting the basis of your argument on shakey ground. Here is the word "sho" in an online dictionary: sho - Wiktionary. But dat shiznit be bunk-ass fo sho, dawg. I can also find you internet news articles stating that the moon landing was a hoax and that bigfoot's running around somewhere in southern Illinois as well. First rule of arguing: Don't rely solely on the internet to back your argument. Use some common sense. Know what defines an authority on a subject (hint: it ain't be da interwebs).

HTH

 

[timtim]

You two are arguing different topics. She's arguing grammatical correctness, and she is right. You are arguing something you pulled off an internet web site, automatically putting the basis of your argument on shakey ground. Here is the word "sho" in an online dictionary: sho - Wiktionary. But dat shiznit be bunk-ass fo sho, dawg. I can also find you internet news articles stating that the moon landing was a hoax and that bigfoot's running around somewhere in southern Illinois as well. First rule of arguing: Don't rely solely on the internet to back your argument. Use some common sense. Know what defines an authority on a subject (hint: it ain't be da interwebs).

HTH

thanks for your 2 cents. i "pulled" that information from websters dictionary. i guess that makes them shakey and not an authority, lol. ill make sure to listen to you though, after all, both of you are language experts who work in this field. sort of like the people at websters, who define irregardless as a word. you might want to back your opinion with alittle fact, which you havent. damn internet.

for the last time, taken from WEBSTERS DICTIONARY -
The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech

im done here. both of you are saying an authority on language is wrong. its like saying jay walking is not an act punishable by a violation ticket, yet it is. is it always enforced? no. that doesnt change the fact that you could be ticketed for it.

like i said im done here.

nerfertiti, if i made a personal attack i apologize. my fault. hopefully no hard feelings.