Anyone asking me to do something “asap” can be assured that the request will be put in the very bottom of my “things to do sometime in the next year” pile.
People who say “a-sap” should be very grateful I do not carry a gun.
And for your intellectual pleasure, I have purposely thrown two grammar mistakes into that post. See if you can spot 'em. :smack:
Adam
It does mean that. What do you think it means?
“I had thought that all but Cecil wouldn’t be able to answer that question,” would’ve meant that everyone but Cecil would be able to answer that question. That, however, is a physical impossibility, since there is no question that The Master cannot answer. 
Therefore, the correct usage is: “I had thought that all but Cecil would be able to answer that question,” meaning “if anyone can answer it, Cecil can.”
Adam
[QUOTE=Agent FoxtrotTherefore, the correct usage is: “I had thought that all but Cecil would be able to answer that question,” meaning “if anyone can answer it, Cecil can.”[/QUOTE]
No, that means “anyone but Cecil can answer that question.”
You are all wrong. The correct phrase is “in tents and porpoises” Anything else just doesn’t make sense.
I don’t believe so, but I’ll research it and post a cite when I get a chance. You could be right and maybe I was right the first time.
Adam
Youch. I wouldn’t go that far. It’s just one mistake. As SpoilerVirgin points out, one can be well-educated and accomplished, and still have one’s little grammar blindspots.
Now, if someone’s CV were littered with malapropisms and grammar errors, that would be a different thing entirely.
I had “lead” instead of “led” on my CV, actually, and of the three people I asked to proofread the document, only my sharp-eyed advisor caught it.
Podkayne, I hate to break it to you, but grammatically speaking, there is nothing wrong with “Intensive Purposes”. “Purposes” is a noun. “Intensive” is an adjective that describes the noun.
What I think you meant to say is that typing “for all intensive purposes” when one means the common idiom “for all intents and purposes” is incorrect.
I once had a boyfriend who used to say, “It’s feast or phantom.” His son told me, “It’s a doggy dog world.”
As I was checking off the items on the mover’s inventory sheets as they delivered my furniture this week, I noticed that they were delivering my “chester” drawers.
Ah, Chester, what a guy…
Yes, technically it’s grammatically correct, but in the way that “The green hamster sprinted when delightful yellow clouds devoured him.” It doesn’t make any sense and nobody uses it. (How can purposes be intensive, anyway?)
I used to work for a little outfit that sold and serviced computers and networks. The owner was also the main salesman. I used to cringe every time I saw him send out a bid to a customer with the words “at the customer’s sight.” I see that every once in a while.
I also know of a man who always uses the word “rather” in place of “whether,” even in writing. Is that some sort of New England regionalism, or just his personal ignorance?
Screeching nails across a blackboard would have been pleasant compared to listening to this guy I used to know saying “fine tooth and comb” all the freaking time. One day I finally broke down and screamed at him “It’s FINE TOOTH COMB you moron! Not fine tooth AND comb!”, and he said “Well that’s just stupid. What’s a fine tooth comb?”.
ARGH!
How about ‘reek havoc’? Or ‘wreck havoc’? I see both far more often the correct term which is wreak (pronounced reek) havoc. And who can forget the unforgettable ‘irregardless’? The principal of the school where I work uses that word, and many other equally idiotic and wrong phrases, at every turn.
One of my best friends says supposably. He’s such a sweetheart that I can’t bring myself to correct him, but I cringe every time he says it. And I can always tell when it’s coming.
I’ve actually received a resume wherein the applicant expressed the desire to “work in a fast paste environment.” I was unable to work up the courage to ask him about it during the interview.
Maybe he used to work in a high-speed glue factory.
TimeWinder said:
It is most definitely NOT, “You’ve got another think coming”. It’s, “You’ve got another thing coming”. Meaning, “You’re not going to get what you think you’re going to get”.
Besides, Judas Priest wouldn’t lie to you.
Wrong. Despite whatever misusage has wormed its way into the lexicon, the original phrasing was “you’ve got another think coming”.
[quote]