Just crashed into a Lamborghini!

Still, Hazy Shade Of Winter is a fantastic song.

Anything with allusions to cold in it will do for you, won't it? :)

these tags far surpass anything in the car thread.... Im jealous :p

Fastest bogie in the world,

Lambo greenie.

Taxi !

For God's sake, what is it with this 'of' crap? It's 'have', is it ignorance, laziness , or kiddy slang?

I'm sure you already know it's phonology interfering with orthography - the weak form of 'have' being pronounced schwa+v, which is also the weak form of 'of'.

A mixture of laziness and ignorance perpetuates the error, and you even end up with people using the strong form of 'of' when they're speaking in the present perfect - that shit's fucked up.

I <3 schwa, the most 'successful' of English vowels, and yet virtually unknown - a bit like the phonemic equivalent of Beryl Burton.

ə is what it looks like, for those of you with the appropriate fonts installed.

I <3 schwa

heh heh, +1. That and the logic behind choosing hard or soft '-ed' for regular verbs in the past simple..

I'm sure you already know it's phonology interfering with orthography - the weak form of 'have' being pronounced schwa+v, which is also the weak form of 'of'.

A mixture of laziness and ignorance perpetuates the error, and you even end up with people using the strong form of 'of' when they're speaking in the present perfect - that shit's fucked up.

I <3 schwa, the most 'successful' of English vowels, and yet virtually unknown - a bit like the phonemic equivalent of Beryl Burton.

ə is what it looks like, for those of you with the appropriate fonts installed.

Thanks BMMF - that response was both elucidating and entertaining - a wonderful combination! I'm afraid that Platini's ire was pertinent but sadly all too rare these days. I think the simple fact is that many, many people now really don't appreciate the grammatical difference between these pronounced abbreviations. I have to read a lot of essays, and many students tend to write as they speak and seem to assume that spelling and grammar can be adapted to what the consensus deems understandable. Which, when you think about it, is as nonsensical as that online dictionary that is meant to carry the definitions the majority choose to accept, rather than those that are in fact correct. (steps off high horse somewhat shakily)

I'm sure you already know it's phonology interfering with orthography - the weak form of 'have' being pronounced schwa+v, which is also the weak form of 'of'.

A mixture of laziness and ignorance perpetuates the error, and you even end up with people using the strong form of 'of' when they're speaking in the present perfect - that shit's fucked up.

I <3 schwa, the most 'successful' of English vowels, and yet virtually unknown - a bit like the phonemic equivalent of Beryl Burton.

ə is what it looks like, for those of you with the appropriate fonts installed.

Be that as it may. I think it's laziness.

I think ignorance plays a big part. There is so little grammar taught at English schools today, it's no wonder some people never get beyond writing what they think they hear themselves saying.

then again laziness + igorance + thick anyway = "Try are sausage's - there grate!"

heh heh, +1. That and the logic behind choosing hard or soft '-ed' for regular verbs in the past simple..

There are 3 '-ed' endings for past simple verbs, init.

I think ignorance plays a big part. There is so little grammar taught at English schools today, it's no wonder some people never get beyond writing what they think they hear themselves saying.

then again laziness + igorance + thick anyway = "Try are sausage's - there grate!"

That is exactly why we need to reify the Derek Zoolander School For Kids Who Can't Read Good (And Who Want To Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too).

it's ignorance, fo' sho.

most cunts divvun't ken wh' s guid english aw no

people now say 'of' instead of 'have', so that's what they write.

as for the rest of this thread - Jesus The actual Christ.

Rrrrabbie Burns would concur.

There are 3 '-ed' endings for past simple verbs, init.

there are indeed BMMF. the one I didn't mention is born out of the need to avoid repetition of the soft or hard ending you would be liable to choose following the general rule..

Rrrrabbie Burns would concur.

anti-semite

Be that as it may. I think it's laziness.

I think you're just being too lazy to follow BMMF's explanation. ;)

I think you're just being too lazy to follow BMMF's explanation. ;)

Busted!

[QUOTE=;][/QUOTE]
I'm always going to take the side of functional language over prescriptive grammar. My wife gets vexed when I say 'of' rather than 'have' in the context mentioned above - shock horror! I make linguistic mistakes - but if the spoken implicature isn't rendered ambiguous by the error, then I don't really give a fuck. I find it mildly irritating in written language, but again, if the message is unmuddied, then I've got plenty more bigger fish to fry in the sea or whatever, guy.

I'm always going to take the side of functional language over prescriptive grammar. My wife gets vexed when I say 'of' rather than 'have' in the context mentioned above - shock horror! I make linguistic mistakes - but if the spoken implicature isn't rendered ambiguous by the error, then I don't really give a fuck. I find it mildly irritating in written language, but again, if the message is unmuddied, then I've got plenty more bigger fish to fry in the sea or whatever, guy.

You're absolutely right of course, but once a sub, always a sub...

anti-semite

Go to Coventry and remain there until the toxicity of that humour has depleted to a safe tolerance (approximately 252,000 years, like Primark trousers).

I'm always going to take the side of functional language over prescriptive grammar. My wife gets vexed when I say 'of' rather than 'have' in the context mentioned above - shock horror! I make linguistic mistakes - but if the spoken implicature isn't rendered ambiguous by the error, then I don't really give a fuck. I find it mildly irritating in written language, but again, if the message is unmuddied, then I've got plenty more bigger fish to fry in the sea or whatever, guy.

yeah but English grammar can get to be quite a jones in itself... great language, English. and if only its native speakers were shown that at school they might find learning other people's languages rather more easy rather than being even more lazy and ignorant communicating with them.

implicature

Word of the day.

if the message is unmuddied, then I've got plenty more bigger fish to fry in the sea or whatever

Mixed metaphor of the day.

You're absolutely right of course, but once a sub, always a sub...

As long as redundancies are taken out and removed, I'm happy.

You're absolutely right of course, but once a sub, always a sub...

that's one of the most fun ways you can be taught non-defining relative clauses..

Go to Coventry and remain there until the toxicity of that humour has depleted to a safe tolerance (approximately 252,000 years, like Primark trousers).

i know, i know...it was a groaner from the start..