I got another (courtesy of Louis CK) Adding the term "hilarious" in a humorless sentence. "Guess what? I saw Lisa the other day, it was hilarious." How the hell is that hilarious?!
Someone on CF has it in their signature here. Instead of "dominant" people using "dominate" as the adjective. As in "Shaq is a dominate player" I used to pluralize players's names alot, (or "a lot". or " players' ", or whatever...) Like replicated Kobes and Lebrons were running wild through the league. I knew it looked dumb but I'd do it anyway (or "anyways"). So I changed it to [player's name] types if I just had to reference a player name. Not a frequently used one, heard it today on radio but pronouncing Notre Dame. Its "Noder Daim". It just, is.... But then someone uses the "Notra DOMM" to sound elite like its really a scholastic institution instead of football. I hate that
I had a girl in my high school AP English class who wrote an entire 10 page paper about the theme of "ampathy" in a novel. I remember the teacher pulling her aside after she graded this and told her that was in fact not a word. She asked her if she meant "empathy" or "sympathy" but she insisted on "ampathy"
Rep points. I've been on the "irony" bandwagon for years. In the 6th grade I took a reading class that burned this debate into my mind for life. My instructor insisted that the definition of irony was "unintentional humor." This debate raged and the usage of the word has been a pet peeve of mind ever since. In fact, this very morning this debate came up at work. My co-worker and I were talking about the Rockets game and I mentioned that I almost went to a particular bar to catch the game. He said "Man, me too! There's irony for you!"
Seriously. I wish I could search, but it seems like the last grammar thread we had, Fatty had another failure. Was it the same one? I don't think it was "often", I believe it was another world he failed on.
Queue Alanis Morissette. "It's like rain on your wedding day And isn't it ironic ..." No, Alanis. No, it isn't ironic. It's unfortunate.
Whatever. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060706193650AAmjRiw I have to chuckle at those who think the silent-t pronunciation is slang or sloppy. It was long the only accepted pronunciation! Dictionaries now list both, but here's my argument for NOT pronouncing the T The stem word is "oft" --in which the t is pronounced. But when the ending "en" is added, the t sound is lost (though it remains in the spelling). There are, in fact, MANY examples of this sort of shift in English and in every other case the t becomes silent when followed by an -en or -le. Note especially - soft (pronounced) vs. soften (silent). Compare: list -> listen; glisten; fast [as in 'held fast/secure'] -> fasten; haste -> hasten; moist > moisten; chaste -> chasten; nest -> nestle; castle; mistletoe; whistle; wrest -> wrestle; trestle; gristle; thistle; cf. also Christ > Christmas But then folks started pronouncing the "t" -- almost certainly a hypercorrection based on the word's spelling (with no recognition of the pattern I described above). This became so widespread that many regard is as an acceptable alternative, at least in certain dialects . That's the way language goes -- enough people make the same mistake for long enough that it is no longer a mistake!
I love it when "new" people come in with personal vendettas on people they don't like. They can run their mouths off and hey? What does it matter if they say anything. This "new" account can just be remade. It's obvious you are not "new" here. What was the old moniker that got you banned? Pathetic.
It explains WHY the "t" in often is now acceptable. It's still poor english. But if you like running around saying "inflammable" and "irregardless" just because enough stupid people said it that the dictionary had to alter their definitions altogether, that's your choice. I'd rather go with proper grammar. And I can post plenty more, if you'd like explaining this to you.
Hmmmm, inflammable is the OLDER word by 200 years over flammable. By your logic, enough stupid people wanted to use flammable so it was incorporated into the language.
You fail again. Inflammable is a word. It just happens to mean the same thing as flammable. It actually came out 200 years before flammable, 16th century vs 19th century. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflammable?jss=0 http://www.write101.com/W.Tips215.htm
hilarious! bring 'em on fatty. i personally curious about what a random myspace survey would say about this topic!
NewYorker. Fatty, do you not realize that this board is, and has been wide open for YEARS. Do you not realize that someone could read this board without an account for 5 years and then register an account and start posting? Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit. For someone who thinks the T in often is silent, someone who things smokeless cigs are the greatest thing since sliced bread, and for someone who let's their GF find out their CF.net handle and enables her to search all your late night druken, womanizing, chauvinistic pigish behaviors..... I am not surprised that you don't realize you can read this board for YEARS w/out posting. Fatty, get a clue.
