For fuck's sake, it's, "could HAVE!"

[vivalostwages]

My college students often write “of” when they mean “have” and I slash through it with my red pen. Arrrghh! They just write what they hear. I don’t think they read very much or absorb whatever it is they do read.

And if I see one more person write “nowadays” the wrong way…“now n days,” “now a days,” “now and days,” etc…I think I’ll lose it.

[kaylasdad99]

@Large Marge

And then please tell my why you felt you needed TWO etc.'s? One just wouldn’t do the trick? You needed the extra etc. for emphasis? What??

Actually, you need three of them, then you can imitate Yul Brynner.

[kaylasdad99]

Well, I guess it’s a doggy dog world.

[Large_Marge]

@kaylasdad99

Actually, you need three of them, then you can imitate Yul Brynner.

[Large_Marge]

Someone tell me:

It’s “absorb” but “absorption.”

Why the p?

I must know.

[Nocturne]

@Large Marge

Someone tell me:

It’s “absorb” but “absorption.”

Why the p?

I must know.

It’s from Latin:

Latin absorpti, absorptin-, from absorptus, past participle of absorbre, to absorb.

So in other words, the Latin infinitive is absorbre (to absorb), and then in the past participle it changes to absorptus (have absorbed), and then the noun form is derived from the past participle. I think. English just picked up from Latin.

[Little_Nemo]

For fuck’s sake, it’s, “could HAVE!”

Not, “could of.” Similarly, you will find that the proper phrasing is, “should have,” not, “should of.”

Now, I am well aware of the fact that many of us, in conversation, will pronounce such phrases as, “could’ve,” and, “should’ve,” but these are contractions, Og damn it; contractions which incorporate the word, “HAVE,” not, “of.”

Pretty lame for my first pitting, I know, but I just came across yet another, “could of,” on another board and I snapped. Of course, it could be the wine talking.

Gaudere’s Law is once again invoked.

You shouldn’t include a comma between the verb and its subject. Your post should read:

For fuck’s sake, it’s “could HAVE!”

Not “could of.” Similarly, you will find that the proper phrasing is “should have” not “should of.”

Now I am well aware of the fact that many of us, in conversation, will pronounce such phrases as “could’ve” and “should’ve” but these are contractions, Og damn it; contractions which incorporate the word “HAVE” not “of.”

Pretty lame for my first pitting, I know, but I just came across yet another “could of” on another board and I snapped. Of course, it could be the wine talking.

And now, in accordance with the Law, I have surely broken several rules of grammar in turn. So somebody correct my post and taunt the wrath of Gaudere.

[duffer]

@CynicalGabe

I just needed a fake reason to use “should of” in a sentence.

You selfish, selfish man. It’s all about you, isn’t it? You can’t let a little pit thread get in your way of getting a smart-ass remark posted, can you? All hail CGabe, master of hitting theads where he can post a snarky comment to prove how witty he is! You “should of” stayed out of this thread!

[sub]Yup, totally fucking with ya. [/sub]

[FinnAgain]

@FinnAgain

I wonder if this isn’t simply a step in the language’s evolution.

For instance, for a long time the phrase “toe the line” meant inching your toes right up against a line you weren’t to cross. Then it became “toe the line” as in, taking up slack and doing what you’re told.

Just a thought.

D’oh! Then it becamse TOW the line.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

[FinnAgain]

Became.
Fuck it. I’m going to sleep. This is so not my night.

[butter_pie]

I hate “use to.” It’s USED to. I have a friend that used the phrase in some dialogue on his comic, then when people wrote and corrected him, defended himself and said that’s how he says it, rather than just fixing the bloody thing. ARGH. I’m not going to harass him about it because he’s my friend and it’s really not that big of a deal, but damn if it doesn’t make me cringe everytime I look there and see it.

[matt_mcl]

@FinnAgain

D’oh! Then it becamse TOW the line.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

No, it bloody well didn’t.

[don_t_ask]

Several of my pet hates here, some have literally driven me crazy.

[armedmonkey]

Hey, a grammar rant! I’ve been waiting for one of these; I’ve had a beef but it wasn’t near enough big to start my own thread. Mine’s more of a word choice thing, but I feel the O.P.'s pain about the little things in language.

After an especially busy night, one of my waitstaff told me that she: “literally worked herself to death”. Of course, she was still standing when she told me that.

I don’t like to discriminate, but sometimes you have to draw a line. I draw my line at zombies. I can’t have my employees eating the brains of my patrons. It’s bad for business.

[Ephemera]

@Large Marge

Then call me a “pre-Madonna,” because so far, I agree with them wholeheartedly.

And then please tell my why you felt you needed TWO etc.'s? One just wouldn’t do the trick? You needed the extra etc. for emphasis? What??

I assume he used the extra etc. for emphasis, much like you used two question marks when only one was warranted.

[Othersider]

@A Monkey With a Gun

Hey, a grammar rant! I’ve been waiting for one of these; I’ve had a beef but it wasn’t near enough big to start my own thread. Mine’s more of a word choice thing, but I feel the O.P.'s pain about the little things in language.

After an especially busy night, one of my waitstaff told me that she: “literally worked herself to death”. Of course, she was still standing when she told me that.

I don’t like to discriminate, but sometimes you have to draw a line. I draw my line at zombies. I can’t have my employees eating the brains of my patrons. It’s bad for business.

This made me chortle.
There’s also “I’d just assume…”

[MizQuirk]

Oh, I agree with all the bright people here, and the older I get, the more curmudgeony I become about all the grammatical misuses you mention.

Let’s not forget the BRING/TAKE. Isn’t it obvious which is bringing and which is taking? How can people screw that up?

[MizQuirk]

That’s supposed to be “the BRING/TAKE thing.” I don’t know how to use CAPS very well.

[carlb]

@Little Nemo

Gaudere’s Law is once again invoked.

You shouldn’t include a comma between the verb and its subject. Your post should read:

And now, in accordance with the Law, I have surely broken several rules of grammar in turn. So somebody correct my post and taunt the wrath of Gaudere.

OK, first of all, I was a little drunk at the time. Secondly, I was always taught to use a comma prior to the opening quotation mark and then a second comma (or other appropriate punctuation) before the closing quotation mark.

Even in my alcohol-induced rage I was well aware of Gaudere’s Law. I don’t think there has ever been a post that was reviewed so thoroughly by the author prior to submitting, with the possible exception of this one.

[aldiboronti]

@Savannah

I’ll raise my glass (vodka and cranberry juice) and add:

It’s “I **couldn’t ** care less,” you morons, not “I could care less.”

“I could care less,” implies you care somewhat.

“I couldn’t care less,” means you care not at all.

Grrrrrrr.

And “I could care less?” implies you couldn’t possibly care less than you do. Not often spoken thus but this may account for the original alteration.