Ok should be followed with a comma PF is not a word - it's an abbreviation for "power forward" TEH is a misspelling of "the" SF is not a word - it's an abbreviation for "shooting guard" C is not a word - it's an abbreviation for "center" a comma should follow "centers" FO is a misspelling of "of" TEHRE is a misspelling of "there" "THERE ARE ONLY ONE" should be "there is only one" a period should follow "piece", ending the sentence TAHTS - is a misspelling of "That" (capitalized assuming the previous sentence was ended properly). FISRT is a misspelling of "first" a hyphen should precede "first" to be "pass-first" "guard" should be followed by a period, ending the sentence. a comma should follow "Sura can do it" "I am wonder" should be "I wonder" or "I am wondering" TARDE should be "trade" "some" should be "a" PG is not a word - it's an abbreviation for "point guard" I'm not sure what is meant by "live make more...". I think it's meant to be, "who can get more than"... thasn is a misspelling of "than" ASSIT is a misspelling of "assists" "game" should be followed by a period, ending the sentence. DS not a word or a name - it's an abbreviation for "Damon Stoudamire" a space should occur between Marbury and open-parenthesis "looser" is a misspelling of "loser" Breavin is a misspelling of "Brevin" (however, since this is a name, I don't believe it can be counted). Biby is a misspelling of "Bibby" (however, since this is a name, I don't believe it can be counted). "Any suggestions" is not a complete sentence. "Suggestions" should be followed with a questions mark. It really depends on how much you want to count. Though using "PF" and "SG" isn't grammatically correct, it is commonly used on this bbs. On the other hand, the opening sentence is syntactically correct, but could certainly be rephrased to be more clear. Also, I don't think you can count the misspelling of names. And technically, none of the name listings is a complete sentence. But if you want to count absolutely everything. including all four of the name listings, which are incomplete sentences, you would find a total of... 34 Revised to be correct, it would look like this: Of course, his biggest mistake was creating the post at all
droxford, I agree with most of your suggestions, but what do you think about correcting "We have one of the best small forwards and centers" to say "We have one of the best small forward and also one of the best centers", since one of the best is only pointing out small forwards and it would suggest it is the same person he is mentioning? One of the best small forwards and centers: one person One of the best small forwards and also one of the best centers: two persons. Man, I love this.
It certainly makes sense to phrase it that way, but technically, I don't think that it's grammatically or syntactically incorrect.
Today is "Learning to Spell Ebonics". Mr. Darnell Jackson will help out by putting the words into sentences. Foreclose "If I don't pay my alimony this month, I'll have more money forclose." Sodomy "When I go out at night, I like to have one b**** on one sodomy and another b****o n de other sodomy." Rectum "I had two Cadillacs, but my girlfrin rectum both." Hotels "I gave my girlfrin the crabs, then the hotels everybody." Dissapointment "My parole officer told me if I miss disappointment, he gonna send me back toos the big house." Decide "My favorite girls are Waanda and Yolanda, but I like to keep a couple on decide." Penis "I had to take my drug test the other day, so my parole officer gives me a paper cup and says, "Here penis." Afford "I wanted to buy a Cadillac, but had to settle for afford." Subpoena "I went to the john at the concert, but the lines were long and I hadda go bad, so da man sez " 'subpoena sink' ". Manual "I told my buddy Tyrone, manual get yourself in trouble if you keep messin with dat hoe." Catacomb "I went to the fight and sat next to Don King - now someone oughta git that catacomb." Mister "My girlfrin went on vacation and I really mister." Undermine "There's a fine looking b**** living in the apartment undermine." Cadaver "I told my buddy Tyrone I liked his sister and wanted to see her and he said I cadaver." Paramour "I was playing cards with my buddy Antonio and I said ' Wadda you got?' He said ' I got an ace high and you're gonna need a paramour to beat me." Polyp "On my way home from the Pistons game the other night, I was involved in a fi car polyp." Urinal "After the police broke down my door last night, they said, 'Darnett, urinal lot a trouble.'
Believe it or not, I thought about that carefully for a while. What I chose was'nt gramatically or syntactically incorrect, conveyed the point, and completed the statement.
Gosh, I am still waiting for some big names hitting on this thread. Sorry droxford, but I think you may have lost. Just my opinion though.
Case in point: 1) That is a really l o n g sentence, and is better broken into at least two shorter ones. 2) "We get the power forward we need", IMO, should instead be written as "We've got the power forward we need" (or arguably, We got the power forward we need). Look, the acquisition of Swift is something that has happened (or happened), so the use of present tense doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense here. 3) As suggested by SwoLy-D in post #22, it's definitely less ambiguous to say "One of the best small forwards and also one of the best centers" than the abbreviated one you used. Also, I see nothing wrong in employing "list style", rather than "complete sentences", to denote a collection of nouns - such as the player names here.
Keep your verb tense consistent. It should be, "We got the power forward we needed." If you want to add "have", then it would be "have gotten", but it sounds messy. I like the first sentence better, and I hate past and present perfect usages. I agree that breaking up the multiple sentences with periods would do readers a favor instead of joining them with a conjunction. Here's my anal version of the quote- I wasn't sure if "so" was a conjunction or a transitional in the original. There's a lot of grammatical errors and repetition, but changing them would ruin intended meaning of the original. My posts are probably rife with errors. I'm only like this on English tests....
1) We got the PF we needed. 2) We have got the PF we needed. ["got" is the acceptable past participle of "get".] 3) We have got the PF we need. 4) We get the PF we need. Of the four variations above, my choice is 1). I agree with you on that. I don't know why I chose 3). Just before I wrote the previous post, some weird thought had come across my mind. I thought I would be stuck on this: "Lets say I use 1), what shall I respond if I am asked 'So that means we don't need PF now?'". Looking back, I feel I was kinda gutless. Further comment on 4). IMO, although it is both syntactically and grammatically correct, it does not make sense semantically. "We get something" essentially says "we don't have that at the moment (at least)", which is apparently not true in the case of Swift. The usage of "get" in this situation is a lot like that of "forget". We just don't say "we forget something" when we actually mean "we forgot something".
Invisible Fan and wnes, I'm not going to say you're wrong; however, though the revisions I made could certainly be re-worded to deliver the statement better, they are not grammatically or syntactically incorrect. Sure, we could critique the style in which it was written, and different people write in different styles. But there's nothing incorrect about making a long sentence. There's nothing incorrect about changing verb tenses in a sentence. No, they don't help the flow of the statement, but they're not incorrect, either.
I am sorry. You have been caught again. I am also willing to say that beginning a sentence with "But" is unacceptable... unless you're a journalist. wnes, IMHO, I believe the original poster meant that we--in the future--will GET the power forward we need, and his usage of "got" is correct, so it's acceptable if you omit the auxiliar verbs "have" or "will have" to say that we have "acquired" or will "receive".
I agree with you droxford, style is a biatch. It is certainly not the purpose of this fun game to argue for a "perfect style". But if the grammar and syntax issues are settled, don't you think the semantics should also be taken into serious consideration (which is partially what I mean by "usage" in the thread title post)?
