KCRag Forum

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:28 pm**

alot ??? should be a lot.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:33 pm**

things can be what you want them to be. such as the name sean can be spelled shawn. who's gonna correct that?

kristy or christie? I know alot of people like this.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:40 pm**

schugg wrote: things can be what you want them to be. such as the name sean can be spelled shawn. who's gonna correct that?

It should be Cian. &

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:42 pm**

WSPanic wrote: Agreed. Their perfectly exceptable.

I dont see how you can sit they're and say that.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:28 pm**

To funny for I. &

BTW, when to use "whom"... In context to him, her or them. "Who" is in context to he, she, they.

For "myself", you can only use it when referencing yourself, not others.
I did it for myself.
She did it for me.

There's an odd fear of using the word "me" and "I" is too often incorrectly used.
Are you going to the store with Sally and I. Wrongo... take away the other person and it makes no sense.

But I shouldn't talk. I catch my own grammar errors in half my posts.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:20 pm**

I thinks that we alls just cant tell whens we are speekin bad.
Now for the correction.
I think that, as humans, we can not tell when we are speeking poorly.

When we talk in our day to day life, there are a lot of errors that we pronounce. However when we type them out on the computer, it is easy to forget our teaching from school.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:38 pm**

EYZ BK ON RD.

Texting can kill.*

*And cause people to speak and type poorly the rest of the time.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:49 pm**

AllThingsKC wrote: Texting can kill.*

Man (almost) killed by texting. http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 0/-1/CINCI

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:02 pm**

That is another thing that is wrong. When we are chatting by instant messenger or cell phone, Why do we use shortcut language instead of full sentences?

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:38 pm**

anniewarbucks wrote: That is another thing that is wrong. When we are chatting by instant messenger or cell phone, Why do we use shortcut language instead of full sentances?

Because on a cell phone, texting full words is a pain in the ass. Also you're limited to a certain number of characters in each text message by the cell carrier.

By the way what in the world are "sentances"?

Posted: **Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:48 am**

The things that start with a capital letter and ends with a period, exclamation point or question mark. They usualy start with a noun or pronoun, have a verb in the middle and an ending. &&&

Posted: **Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:59 am**

anniewarbucks wrote: The things that start with a capital letter and ends with a period, exclamation point or question mark. They usualy start with a noun or pronoun, have a verb in the middle and an ending. &&&

I thought that was a "sentence."

Posted: **Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:39 pm**

It depresses me immensely that the proper use of our own language is so rare that it's considered to be lame, or overly pedantic, even uppity.

It's cool to be ignorant now.

Posted: **Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:47 pm**

^Re: Idiocracy.

Posted: **Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:09 pm**

Language, grammar and spelling is fluid. It changes with each generation.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:54 am**

Today's ignant slang will be queen's English in 100 years.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:00 am**

Gladstoner wrote: Today's ignant slang will be queen's English in 100 years.

And then 100 years after that it will be obscure again, sort of like "get on the trolley."

Or how about, "We know that you and the bootblack have been rogering the fishwife in the crumpetshop."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZac3eRpJWo

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:08 am**

So this is a image from the 1611 version of the King James Bible, the one that was going to solidify the lexicon for all time in the english speaking world.

Since then the "Official" King James has been updated in 1791.

001:001 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
001:002 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
001:003 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
001:004 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
001:005 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
001:006 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
001:007 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
001:008 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
001:009 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
001:010 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
001:011 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
001:012 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
001:013 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
001:014 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
001:015 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

And so on with the American Standard Version in the 1880's which really helped to create a "people separated by a common language".

And now mass media has probably done more to change the way we speak and unify the way we speak. We may all speak the same way soon, but it may sound like Snoop Dog.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:39 am**

I'm not referring to a changing style of language. I'm talking about the supposedly literate masses having no concern about articulately using their own language. In the past, languages have experienced change only in the spoken form, and the written form has followed. What's happening now is that the written form is actually degrading and limiting the capability of our language.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:40 am**

bahua wrote: What's happening now is that the written form is actually degrading and limiting the capability of our language.

how so?

language is constantly in flux and has innumerable capabilities.

KCRag Forum

If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.

Re: If you could care less about grammar, skip this topic.