EASLOOP
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
He's winding, wineding, wynding ??? you all up!!!
He's winding, wineding, wynding ??? you all up!!!
Why can't you lot spell ?? or is it me?
- Thread starter dch
- Start date
jenku
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
So what do you call the actual body part then?
So what do you call the actual body part then?
jenku
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
No but that could be almost Swedish. "Pulla" then. A bit old fashioned perhaps.
No but that could be almost Swedish. "Pulla" then. A bit old fashioned perhaps.
jenku
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
[ QUOTE ]
er, like, who the feck cares?
Bloomin' eck it's taken four goes to find a version the (word removed) program doesn't recognise!
[/ QUOTE ]
Now why are you Brits so sensitive about those words? Why writing (word removed) when everybody knows which word it is? No one else does this (OK maybe the Americans)! This is a serious question, I am trying to learn!!
[ QUOTE ]
er, like, who the feck cares?
Bloomin' eck it's taken four goes to find a version the (word removed) program doesn't recognise!
[/ QUOTE ]
Now why are you Brits so sensitive about those words? Why writing (word removed) when everybody knows which word it is? No one else does this (OK maybe the Americans)! This is a serious question, I am trying to learn!!
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
I assume you're talking about a penis, prick, willy, dick, todger, john thomas, old feller, etc? No shortage of anglo-saxon words if so.
I assume you're talking about a penis, prick, willy, dick, todger, john thomas, old feller, etc? No shortage of anglo-saxon words if so.
jenku
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
Yes and I am aware that lots of words do exist. What I am curious about is why so many of you chose to obfuscate them by writing things like "word removed" or "f--k" or the like. Truely if one wants to avoid offending readers it would be rather better simply not to use the word at all, would it not? And if the writer is not concerned with others possible taking offence, then why not just write the words down properly?
Or is it not about logic but about finding the coolest way to obfuscate offending words? Still, the BBC beeps them away as well or is that only the Americans?
Yes and I am aware that lots of words do exist. What I am curious about is why so many of you chose to obfuscate them by writing things like "word removed" or "f--k" or the like. Truely if one wants to avoid offending readers it would be rather better simply not to use the word at all, would it not? And if the writer is not concerned with others possible taking offence, then why not just write the words down properly?
Or is it not about logic but about finding the coolest way to obfuscate offending words? Still, the BBC beeps them away as well or is that only the Americans?
Danny Jo
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
This is fascinating. I have always thought that the accusative me should always be used when "I" is the object, but stand corrected.
This from Mark Israel's analysis
Fowler says: "me is technically wrong in It wasn't me etc.; but the phrase being of its very nature colloquial, such a lapse is of no importance".
The rule for what he and others consider technically right is *not* (as is commonly misstated) that the nominative should *always* be used after "to be". Rather, it is that "to be" should link two noun phrases of the same case, whether this be nominative or accusative:
I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?
According to the traditional grammar being used here, "to be" is not a transitive verb, but a *copulative* verb. . . . (After all, B is also doing it to A.) Other verbs considered copulative are "to become", "to remain", "to seem", and "to look".
Mark
This is fascinating. I have always thought that the accusative me should always be used when "I" is the object, but stand corrected.
This from Mark Israel's analysis
Fowler says: "me is technically wrong in It wasn't me etc.; but the phrase being of its very nature colloquial, such a lapse is of no importance".
The rule for what he and others consider technically right is *not* (as is commonly misstated) that the nominative should *always* be used after "to be". Rather, it is that "to be" should link two noun phrases of the same case, whether this be nominative or accusative:
I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?
According to the traditional grammar being used here, "to be" is not a transitive verb, but a *copulative* verb. . . . (After all, B is also doing it to A.) Other verbs considered copulative are "to become", "to remain", "to seem", and "to look".
Mark
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
[ QUOTE ]
This is fascinating. I have always thought that the accusative me should always be used when "I" is the object, but stand corrected.
This from Mark Israel's analysis
Fowler says: "me is technically wrong in It wasn't me etc.; but the phrase being of its very nature colloquial, such a lapse is of no importance".
The rule for what he and others consider technically right is *not* (as is commonly misstated) that the nominative should *always* be used after "to be". Rather, it is that "to be" should link two noun phrases of the same case, whether this be nominative or accusative:
I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?
According to the traditional grammar being used here, "to be" is not a transitive verb, but a *copulative* verb. . . . (After all, B is also doing it to A.) Other verbs considered copulative are "to become", "to remain", "to seem", and "to look".
Mark
[/ QUOTE ]
Yawn......zzzzzzzzzz........zzzzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzzzzz.........zzzzzz.........zzzzzzzz /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
[ QUOTE ]
This is fascinating. I have always thought that the accusative me should always be used when "I" is the object, but stand corrected.
This from Mark Israel's analysis
Fowler says: "me is technically wrong in It wasn't me etc.; but the phrase being of its very nature colloquial, such a lapse is of no importance".
The rule for what he and others consider technically right is *not* (as is commonly misstated) that the nominative should *always* be used after "to be". Rather, it is that "to be" should link two noun phrases of the same case, whether this be nominative or accusative:
I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?
According to the traditional grammar being used here, "to be" is not a transitive verb, but a *copulative* verb. . . . (After all, B is also doing it to A.) Other verbs considered copulative are "to become", "to remain", "to seem", and "to look".
Mark
[/ QUOTE ]
Yawn......zzzzzzzzzz........zzzzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzzzzz.........zzzzzz.........zzzzzzzz /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Matrosen
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
The reason for 'word removed' and the 'feck' is that the forums are controlled by a "bad language" filter which is an American program.
The question as to why we in Europe have to be subject to the American ideas of taste has yet to be addressed!
The reason for 'word removed' and the 'feck' is that the forums are controlled by a "bad language" filter which is an American program.
The question as to why we in Europe have to be subject to the American ideas of taste has yet to be addressed!
jenku
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
Really? I had no idea! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif So why would anybody bother to write a language filter?? Surely there are more important things to do to save the world...
Really? I had no idea! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif So why would anybody bother to write a language filter?? Surely there are more important things to do to save the world...
tome
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
[ QUOTE ]
The reason for 'word removed' and the 'feck' is that the forums are controlled by a "bad language" filter which is an American program
[/ QUOTE ] Fu<span style="color:black">ck me, I never knew that!
[ QUOTE ]
The reason for 'word removed' and the 'feck' is that the forums are controlled by a "bad language" filter which is an American program
[/ QUOTE ] Fu<span style="color:black">ck me, I never knew that!
reginaldon
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me? re: jenku
Don't you realise that half the population feel a compulsion to state that eveything in this planet is copulating and then think it's drole. They then call it 'adult language' - it is completely adolescent and evidences an inadequate vocabulary - neither is it 'strong' language, just rather pathetic. Incidentally I have lived in a fo'c'sle, ie. not a sheltered life.
Don't you realise that half the population feel a compulsion to state that eveything in this planet is copulating and then think it's drole. They then call it 'adult language' - it is completely adolescent and evidences an inadequate vocabulary - neither is it 'strong' language, just rather pathetic. Incidentally I have lived in a fo'c'sle, ie. not a sheltered life.
tome
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me? re: jenku
Agree, just demonstrating that the language filter isn't that smart. I think you meant droll...
Agree, just demonstrating that the language filter isn't that smart. I think you meant droll...
jenku
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me? re: jenku
Don't know if this is a reply to me (looks a bit like it in the heading), but if it is you are missing my point. If you dislike those words, just don't use them. Writing "f-ck" or similar is nothing better than writing it out in plain. You are still using the word, you are still offending those who chose to be offended. So there is no point at all.
Except cheating on language filters then.
Then again, I am not so sure about the language filter, tome's "offending" post still being there as it is.
But if there were a filter, it would still be a waste of time and energy as it can easily be cheated. The only thing is to convince people not to use those words. Or to chose not to be offended that easily of course.
Don't know if this is a reply to me (looks a bit like it in the heading), but if it is you are missing my point. If you dislike those words, just don't use them. Writing "f-ck" or similar is nothing better than writing it out in plain. You are still using the word, you are still offending those who chose to be offended. So there is no point at all.
Except cheating on language filters then.
Then again, I am not so sure about the language filter, tome's "offending" post still being there as it is.
But if there were a filter, it would still be a waste of time and energy as it can easily be cheated. The only thing is to convince people not to use those words. Or to chose not to be offended that easily of course.
Malcb
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
[ QUOTE ]
The reason for 'word removed' and the 'feck' is that the forums are controlled by a "bad language" filter which is an American program.
The question as to why we in Europe have to be subject to the American ideas of taste has yet to be addressed!
[/ QUOTE ]
But the dictionary used by the language filter is probably user amendable. Si it's just that the moderators haven't decided to replace the word f-ck with anything.
[ QUOTE ]
The reason for 'word removed' and the 'feck' is that the forums are controlled by a "bad language" filter which is an American program.
The question as to why we in Europe have to be subject to the American ideas of taste has yet to be addressed!
[/ QUOTE ]
But the dictionary used by the language filter is probably user amendable. Si it's just that the moderators haven't decided to replace the word f-ck with anything.
reginaldon
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me? re: tome
Touche (sorry, can't find the acute accent).
Touche (sorry, can't find the acute accent).
gjbentley
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
It's just you - correct spelling is no longer a skill in our modern day of technology. As long as the recipient knows what the sender means - its all okay. That's the real world today - ask any teenager who sends text messages.
Also the forum does not have a spell checker before you post. And that is the real reason we all get caught out dropping our p's and q's, and forgetting the cross the t's and dot the i's.
It's just you - correct spelling is no longer a skill in our modern day of technology. As long as the recipient knows what the sender means - its all okay. That's the real world today - ask any teenager who sends text messages.
Also the forum does not have a spell checker before you post. And that is the real reason we all get caught out dropping our p's and q's, and forgetting the cross the t's and dot the i's.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me? re: tome
Let me lend you one ´
Let me lend you one ´
chas
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
Do you mean a pedant's forum?
Do you mean a pedant's forum?
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Re: Why can\'t you lot spell ?? or is it me?
Can't possibly have a pedant's forum. We'll get Sun readers burning down our houses.
Can't possibly have a pedant's forum. We'll get Sun readers burning down our houses.
