In reference to the I never thought I'd see this on the 'net':

I heard this put-down the other day:

'He's the sort of guy that would use "whom" in a text message'!

Funny stuff :)

Wow, 103 posts on a single thread in just over twelve hours. This may be some sort of record for this forum.

Uh, make that 104...

John

AND the majority of it good humoured!

Ooops, 105!

I never added my pet peeve, courtesy of the late Howard Cosell who would often say, "Joe Namath passed for three touchdowns on the day."

On the day???

Actually, maybe all the mis-use of the English language is his fault.

Krispy Kreme...

Good doughnuts or donuts or do-nuts or whatever but lousy spelling.

Man's use of language has been evolving since God created us with the power of speech.

Ooops, sorry, might be the wrong thread :)

Bob, your ruse is too transparent: you want to add the two threads so we can get that bottle of champagne awarded for a thread exceeding 200 posts!

Just last week, I client who produces web video productions (BIG TIME client - A major automobile manufacturer) needed a "sample" for a re-do of a training video. Apparently, the client needed a "different sounding read", because "something was wrong with the previous read." What was wrong was that the script was a mess - the subjects were singular, while the verbs were plural... There were no conjunctions or articles... tenses were all wrong. I had made corrections, and had to re-do the script "as written".

I re-recorded the "samples" using various tones and styles - I also included a corrected version of the script. -I asked to client to check out my reads before forwarding to their client.

Well, I got word that the client chose the version that I had re-written. When I pointed out to my client that I had corrected the English, I got the following back:

"Do not change the script! It has been approved and we do not have the budget to change it. Use the same voice-tone you used in the version they liked. -It is not your job to approve or change the writing.

The "voice-tone" I used was the same as the other version, only the English was closer to being correct, and as a result "easier on the ear".

I re-recorded according to instructions. Don't know how their client liked it.

I think Mrs Malaprop got there before Norm Crosby.

I once heard the sportscaster Brent Musberger say, well he's not pretty when he does it, if he was a painting, he'd be a Pollock Jackson."

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU, rather than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty’s Government conceded that English spelling has some room for improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase-in plan that will be known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, “s” will replace the soft “c”. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy.

The hard “c” will be dropped in favour of the “k”. This should klear up any konfusion and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome “ph” will be replased with “f”. This will make words like “fotograf” 20% shorter.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double leters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent “e”s in the language is disgraseful and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing “th” with “z” and “w” with “v”.

During ze fifz year, ze uneseseray “o” kan be dropd from vords kontaining “ou” and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultiz and evrivum vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer.



ZE DREM VIL FINALI KUM TRU AND ZEN VE VIL TAKE OVER ZE VORLD!!!

Another question:

What word has two entries in the English dictionary?

Both are spelt exactly the same, yet mean the opposite of each other (well almost)

Yes Alan, very Cleave-er

. . but then again I cheated!

Grazie

Grazie, that was obviously too, to, two easy for you!

I shall have to think of something better.

Alan

Sereana said, When checking (before posting) we tend to read what we meant;...

Guilty as charged. This is one of my biggest failings. I can "proof" something I've written 10 times. Great, no mistakes. Then I post it...

... frequently I have to go back in and edit.

... and when I read it after posting, I find all sorts of mistakes. I would be very curious to know what is happening in such cases. (See below.)

LOL -- Good one, Alan!

What about vulnerable and the common use of vunerable?

Jay

I noticed that you edited your last posting. Was that to rectify a mistake? :~)

Alan

I kind of like some of the new words---"dingus", "catewompus", "thingy",
"humongus",---not necessarily spelled correctly.
JJK

I noticed that you edited your last posting. Was that to rectify a mistake?

See? I've proved my own point!

:o)

"See? I've proved my own point!"

Should that not be "proven"?

:~)

Alan, I debated that, actually.

;o)

"nukular" for "nuclear" is a common metathesis. Common as in Clinton, Carter, Ford, Kennedy, and Eisenhower + a whole slew of people from below the Mason-Dixon.

Problem is, "nuclear" is an odd arrangement of sounds. I can't think of any other words that are similar. At least with nukular, right off the top of my head is "avuncular".

And "avuncular" isn't odd? ;)

Try "circular" instead.