And stop using SMS speak, m8
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Public announcement - Free grammar lessons.
- Thread starter Mervyn Beasley
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Parasite
Norm Smith Medallist
That makes no freakin' sense.
If Hawks are best is correct and let's say West Coast Eagles aren't best is incorrect then West Coast Eagles must be the best and hence therefore Hawks can not be the best and hence statement 1 is contradicted by statement 2.
Flukey!
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 23, 2005
- 10,551
- 12,126
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Arsenal, Toronto BlueJays
The worst mistake I've seen on these threads are when people use then instead of than or the other way around..
Eg.. My team is better THEN yours..
The correct way>>> It's better THAN yours..
Eg.. I'd rather walk on nails THEN follow Essendon..
The correct way>>> I'd rather walk on nails THAN follow Essendon..
Eg.. My team is better THEN yours..
The correct way>>> It's better THAN yours..
Eg.. I'd rather walk on nails THEN follow Essendon..
The correct way>>> I'd rather walk on nails THAN follow Essendon..
Grimreepah
BigFooty One Armed Man
One that is very bias
Wrong. Hawks is the collective noun for the team, Hawthorn is the singular.
Therefore...
The Hawks are a real chance of making the top four - CORRECT
Hawthorn is a real chance of making the top four - CORRECT
The Hawks is a real chance of making the top four - INCORRECT
Hawthorn are a real chance of making the top four - INCORRECT
The phrase, "Hawks is..." is never correct, no matter the context. Similarly, the phrase, "Hawthorn are..." is never correct.
With regard to the example you used, there is no way to make that phrase grammatically correct ('bestest' notwithstanding!).
The best effort you could make is to say: "The Hawks are the best(est!) team" but it's still problematic, although generally acceptable in the context of sports teams. If you're referring to the singular term "team", then by definition you should use the singular form of the team's name i.e. "Hawthorn".
Bias (noun) - a particular tendency or inclination; prejudice
<>
Biased (adjective) - having or showing bias or prejudice.
Also:
It's - contraction of "it is" or "it has"
<>
Its - pronoun, the possessive form of "it".
- Oct 7, 2002
- 16,151
- 16,845
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
It would make following Essendon seem less painful by comparison...
When their in good form Chad Cornes is better then you're average frontrunning seegull. INCORRECT
They're a bunch of seagull's and Chad Cornes is better than your average one. CORRECT
They're a bunch of seagull's and Chad Cornes is better than your average one. CORRECT
Parasite
Norm Smith Medallist
Wrong - seagull's doesn't imply ownership or a contraction in that sentence.
Please justify the capitalisation of the f in Free.
That one pisses me off the most. How can you not know the difference between then and than. His and he's is a bloody shocker as well.
Thing is, the people who do it won't read this thread because they don't care.
me fail english, that's unpossible.
Bollox just got owned!!
roger explosion
Team Captain
What? Using a colloquialism is not grammatically incorrect... it may be informal, but it's not an error in grammar. Stop trying to sound smarter than you are.
Its not the Queens English!!!!
- Oct 8, 2004
- 12,504
- 4,474
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Collingwood VFL
The worst grammatical sentence possible (and likely) on BigFooty:
If they think his gone to kick a bag this week end, then there just bias.
That should cause the grammar-bots to explode.
If they think his gone to kick a bag this week end, then there just bias.
That should cause the grammar-bots to explode.
- Oct 8, 2004
- 12,504
- 4,474
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Collingwood VFL
Neither is French, but that doesn't make it grammatically incorrect.
Queen's - ERII
Queens' - on Oxford Street
Could be wrong - Queen's English cud b a noun rather than Queen's being an adjective qualitifying the noun.
Not football related, but this should get some discussion going...
My mate wanted to invite this girl to a party and referred to her as the 'owner of the pub's daughter'. I understood what he meant and let it slide, but another guy jumped up and down saying it was all wrong, saying it should've been 'daughter of the pub's owner', 'pub owner's daughter' or even 'daughter of the owner of the pub' (albeit a bit clumsy).
Now whereas in those other sentences the daughter is the subject, my question is could you claim that 'owner of the pub' is the subject in the first sentence, therefore making it correct that ownership goes to the actual 'owner of the pub' and that it doesn't refer to the the owner of the "pub's daughter" (which obviously makes no sense)? Let me hear what you think.
My mate wanted to invite this girl to a party and referred to her as the 'owner of the pub's daughter'. I understood what he meant and let it slide, but another guy jumped up and down saying it was all wrong, saying it should've been 'daughter of the pub's owner', 'pub owner's daughter' or even 'daughter of the owner of the pub' (albeit a bit clumsy).
Now whereas in those other sentences the daughter is the subject, my question is could you claim that 'owner of the pub' is the subject in the first sentence, therefore making it correct that ownership goes to the actual 'owner of the pub' and that it doesn't refer to the the owner of the "pub's daughter" (which obviously makes no sense)? Let me hear what you think.
Bollox, you will not learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bollox
Close your eyes..i;m not having a go..i GENUINLY feel sorry for the guy after what he's been thru.
We'll let u know when its safe to look ok
Maybe you could get an English speaking, literate Sydney supporter...oh forget it.
Now run along the adults are busy.
We'll call you when dinner is ready.
- Oct 10, 2006
- 9,671
- 6,667
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Mooroolbark FC, Arizona Cardinals
thankyou! drives me f****g NUTS. it ain't hard, people.
