From: Alan McKendree <amck@thenetdr.com>
Reply-To: thewho@igtc.com
To: TheWho@igtc.com
Subject: Re: dots and fragments-no who
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:31:43 -0500
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:14:33 -0400
From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@ascpl.lib.oh.us>
I catch mistakes on on-line news service headlines all the time. Usually
just typos, though.
Two (of many) of my pet grammatical peeves: "snuck" (which I've even seen
printed in _Newsweek_) and "If he was going to town" instead of "If he
*were* going to town..." aka The Subjunctive. I've about given up on
"snuck", it's almost qualified under the "if enough people use it, it *is*
the standard" rule. Oh, here's two more:
wrong: I won't step foot in there
right: I won't set foot in there.
wrong: hone in on your goal
right: home in on your goal
Both of these, while wrong, do make sense and are practically impossible to
correct to someone who's doing it wrong. I've even had an exchange with a
newsletter editor who is still firmly convinced "hone in" is correct.
Speaking of spelling, it was a bad day at the pitch for AEB:
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:42:51 -0700
From: "An English Boy" <peter_dennis_blandford_townshend@hotmail.com>
I call him "Lil' Ed the Brazillain Blues Breaker."
(with all respect to the substance of the post) Is he a "Brazillain
villain"? Or is he a Brazilian?
and
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:37:28 -0700
From: "An English Boy" <peter_dennis_blandford_townshend@hotmail.com>
Just to stir the soup because this list is so fucking anal and politically
correct ANN the FUCKING TIME!
ANN? What the fuck? It's not like "N" is close to "L" on the keyboard.
Oh, and
If they were found guilty the crime they were committed of was "For Under
Carnal Knowledge".
Have a source for this? I read that it was "For Unlawful Carnal
Knowledge", which has the additional benefit of making sense.
Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true"
-- Howard Stern, 5/25/00