quick grammar lesson for watmm

  On 11/10/2009 at 6:11 AM, maus said:

there is a language in particular which escapes me at the moment in which an apostrophe is appropriate in the case of pluralisation. i thought it was dutch, but i may be wrong.

true, for (most) words ending in vowels.

  On 11/10/2009 at 5:50 PM, LUDD said:

  On 11/10/2009 at 4:28 PM, messiaen said:

  On 11/10/2009 at 1:40 PM, LUDD said:

lol wut .. nevermind grammer? . if you know what its means than who cares yeah. their's more important things then grammer... language is like evolving yeah

 

apart from the language is evolving bullshit this is exactly how i feel. if it irritates you, dont read what im saying, but i really cant be arsed putting anything more than minimal thought processes into chatting shit on a redundant internet forum.

 

 

job application, essays, il make the effort. here, no.

 

It shouldn't require effort. If you don't know the difference between "then" and "than" in infant school, then all your efforts are going to be wrongly directed.

 

 

 

If not Chris Clark than who?

im talking about apostrophes in its. i just use its with no apostrophe consistently. i know the difference between then, than, where, were, there, their so on.

  On 11/10/2009 at 5:50 PM, LUDD said:

It shouldn't require effort.

absolutely.

  On 11/10/2009 at 11:55 AM, abusivegeorge said:

I'm going to say fuck its.

+1

I am going to willingly choose ignorance because I'm a selfish, negative person and I care only about myself and I have a small penis (that queefs halitosis out of its hole).

  On 11/10/2009 at 9:14 PM, troon said:

  On 11/10/2009 at 11:55 AM, abusivegeorge said:

I'm going to say fuck its.

 

 

 

+1

I smell a dupe.

i smell penisholitosis

  On 11/10/2009 at 9:12 PM, BCM said:

  On 11/10/2009 at 5:50 PM, LUDD said:

It shouldn't require effort.

 

Absolutely.

Fuck it.

  On 11/10/2009 at 12:58 AM, loganfive said:

  Quote

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

 

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

 

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

 

 

mark twain

 

 

reminds me a bit of dlet.

wow

dick heads

you'll like this, fred

http://apostrophe.me/