Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: x2lls Dec 26 2012, 11:23 AM

Looser, something that is ill fitting.
Loser, someone who fails to win.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 26 2012, 11:32 AM

Not really a spelling issue but many do not seem to know the difference between the words "affect" and "effect".

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 26 2012, 11:35 AM

Should of and should've.

Posted by: Strafin Dec 26 2012, 11:48 AM

I agree with Andy, that's the worst one!

Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2012, 12:22 PM

Well, I'll just go with Mark Twain 'I don't give a **** for a man that can only spell a word one way.'!

(Its the ***** that get me. The word blotted out here isn't a profanity or a blasphemy, it just means smallest morsel and has done since Shakespeare used it. )

Posted by: lordtup Dec 26 2012, 01:25 PM

If one really wishes to experience spelling at her worst go on eBay , especially the used car listings , and either laugh or cry at such offerings as " resent breaks" ,neads tires , and no falts nown .
My spell checker has just given up the will to live.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 26 2012, 04:47 PM

Like Biker1 it's bad grammar that get me. "Less" instead of "fewer" is my pet bugbear. (But only slightly higher on the Richter scale than affect/effect.)

Really makes me loose my cool

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 26 2012, 05:32 PM

There is...
Their toys.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 26 2012, 06:58 PM

???

Posted by: blackdog Dec 26 2012, 08:03 PM

My favourite ebay listing is one that has been going for years - a picture agency attempting to cash in on old press photos has a picture of Cheam School kitchens - from the time when Prince Charles went to the school.

They are selling it as '1957 Newbury Charm School for Future Royalty'.

Posted by: motormad Dec 26 2012, 08:19 PM

As long as I can read the sentence I don't really care... grammar is more important than spelling.
However it does kind of irritate me when someone puts "your" instead of "you're" - A one off mistake is fine but when they do it constantly...
Grr.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 26 2012, 09:14 PM

But that is a characteristic of spelling incorrectly. We tend to get the same thing wrong every time, or at least have to write it a couple of times to get it right. Let's just put it in motoring perspective. It really doesn't matter if I don't indicate, I know where I am going. It's OK, the tyres are a bit bald, but they still go round and round!

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 26 2012, 09:25 PM

Crikey Andy. Just for you,

The people who use the incorrect version of there/their. There you go, that's their problem. Put it there.

Incorrect There toys.
Correct Their toys.

Incorrect Their is a way to go yet.
Correct. There is a way to go yet.

Posted by: CBW137Y Dec 26 2012, 09:54 PM

Here's a blinding effort for you taken from a selling page, which had myself and a few others in fits of laughter: "chester draws".

I kid you not!

Posted by: x2lls Dec 26 2012, 09:57 PM

Nice one!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 26 2012, 10:45 PM

I know the rules of use, but your previous post wasn't clear. If you would have simply posted: there/their, I would have understood you, but you gave poor examples which made your point unclear.

There is nothing wrong with this sentence.
Their toys need to be put back in the box.

Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 27 2012, 09:52 AM

Their/there who give a phuck

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 27 2012, 10:27 AM

Yes, some don't unfortunately.
Their are some folks who don't care about there spelling and this, in many ways, can hold them back in life!
For example, if you were a potential employer and had 2 cv's, one with correct spelling and one with spelling errors, which would you throw in the bin?

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 27 2012, 10:31 AM

I fairly recently saw and classified advert for "4 chip and dale style chairs"
I kid you not!!

Posted by: massifheed Dec 27 2012, 10:41 AM

Posted by: JeffG Dec 27 2012, 10:45 AM

Here's another one: redundant apostrophe's [sic]

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 27 2012, 11:01 AM

The most common spelling mistake seen on car sale adverts is the use of breaks rather than brakes.
And just to prove my point type in break pads(sic) into ebay search.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 27 2012, 11:05 AM

Bought and brought

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 11:07 AM

Ummm, would you like a list? Albert Einstein, Ernest Hemingway, Jane Austin, John Keats, Winston Churchill, Agatha Christie, etc. etc. Just think where some of us would be if we weren't constantly losing time checking others!

Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 27 2012, 11:10 AM

In my long working life (I'm 70 now) and still at it, I have done many jobs to earn a crust. Bar work I always liked because of meeting lots of different people. On writing out the menu board in the pubs we always misspelled a word deliberately, soap in stead of soup and so on. Without fail you would always have the clever-**** point out the mistake. It was just a way of getting people to read the board. I suspect that the chip and dale example and others was done for the same reason.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 11:12 AM

Not quite the same thing, but even BBC presenters cannot pronounce innovative properly. They use the Americanism: in-o-vay-tive instead of in-uh-vat-ive.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 27 2012, 11:15 AM

The wonderful G.W.Bush and the word Nuclear, neucaler.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 11:18 AM

Which is correct? As we have no 'English Acadamy' must be majority rule; so in-o-vay-tive is right.,

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 11:40 AM

I'd say Received Pronunciation is as close as it gets, but there is no right or wrong, it is a style thing. in-o-vay-tive is new and a seemingly American way of saying it.

BTW - if we are to accept majority rule, then 'Eastenders' is the best thing on telly at Christmas.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 27 2012, 11:48 AM

Never been 100% on this.
For example

I understand as correct John's sister.

but what about the sister of Doris.

Doris's sister or do we write Doris' sister.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 11:52 AM

Normally it is Doris's. Some 'classic' names don't though: Jesus, for example, is always Jesus'.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 27 2012, 11:54 AM

Citroen 2CVs are for French farmers. I'd throw them both in the skip.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 12:04 PM

What about Standard English? Received Pronunciation used by less than 5% of the population. One of the reasons 'English; has developed is its ability to evolve. Of course, there will be new words and idioms we don't like but we are not forced to use them. so there is a chance they'll go out of use.

What's wrong with Eastenders? Personally I don't like it, or others of its type, but that's a matter of personal choice. If we are to have a very expensive public service broadcaster, I'd much rather it delivered value to the mass audience, rather than have something imposed by those who think they are our betters!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 12:20 PM

Argumentative today, aren't we?

OK, the masses know best do they? EastEnders appeals to the lowest common denominator, and just like the media, serve to titillate all that is insidious in human nature. Sure, if that doesn't matter let's all go that way. If the majority think we should leave Europe, regardless of the technical merits and ignorance of the mass, let's all go that way, that sounds sensible (irony).

Most people do not have impeccable spelling, should we therefore default to that level? Personally, I'd rather a public broadcaster that can enlighten public awareness rather than have a race to the bottom.

Posted by: motormad Dec 27 2012, 12:41 PM

There's not really a "correct" way though.. each area has it's local colloquialisms... To expect and force people to pronounce things the same is akin to being Hitler.
And here I invoke Godwin's law.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 12:49 PM

'Expect' and 'force' are different things. The ability to read, write, and speak well, comes from good education. It follows, therefore, that the proper way to communicate can be taken from those that have had the best training.

There is no obligation to do things correctly, as might have been the case under Hitler, but it will always help us to communicate effectively if we all followed similar communication protocols. I think we should try to raise standards, not allow them to find their own level. Society makes no progress going in that direction.

Posted by: motormad Dec 27 2012, 01:01 PM

But why force "progress"? It's not even progress, it's just how people talk..

If someone wants to say innovaytive or innovuhtive, who really cares...

And yet if the Government wants to give you ID cards everyone complains!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 01:24 PM

Who's forcing?


The 'great unwashed' don't care. The well educated tend to. Like I said, society will not make progress if we degenerate the way we communicate. Colloquialism tends to come from migrants and the ill-educated or lazy. I don't think we should take our lead from those examples.


I'm not sure I see your point here.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 27 2012, 02:22 PM

Oh my goodness we ARE on the ball today aren't we with all that wit.
Must be the Christmas spirit that has supercharged your brain!!

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 27 2012, 02:24 PM

And another thing - the way people mis-spell their names these days presumably to appear "trendy" or "look at me I'm different and defying convention".

Posted by: Jayjay Dec 27 2012, 02:44 PM

are you suggesting the scots and welsh talk in a southern english accent or should all Newburians be saying 'eh up ****'?

We could mix it up a little 'eh Jimmy like do pop round to ones hice for a jar yous be well jel mon'

Posted by: JeffG Dec 27 2012, 03:05 PM

Ha ha! I didn't spot the earlier post before I posted mine Easily done, eh?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 03:07 PM

Comprehension seems to be another discipline 'on the way out'.

Posted by: Squelchy Dec 27 2012, 03:28 PM

You seem to be confused between 'accents' and 'dialects'.'

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 03:42 PM

Most Scots I know speak well and have a good vocabulary. I suspect, however, that is because they had the wherewithal (through good education or acumen) to migrate and 'better' themselves.

Good English isn't the be and end all, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to better ourselves.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Dec 27 2012, 04:49 PM

Really? So where would these heathens be migrating to in order to 'better' themselves? Not Newbury, that much is certain. Scotland has a better education system than England, so maybe the English should head north of the border so that they may mix with those of superior intellect.

They might then end up making fewer spelling errors and grammatical **** ups. Then again, they might end up in Easterhouse, in which case spelling would be the least of their problems.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 04:55 PM

Newbury is exactly where I mean and why it is a desirable place to live in or near. I don't think the Scots have a superior intellect, but of the ones I know personally, they seem to have better manners and are well spoken. All installed before they came here, I'm sure.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 06:10 PM

We certainly shouldn't default to lowest denominator, but then again we shouldn't pick up every single little nit that crops up. That's simply being pedantic and often an excuse to prevaricate. I am certainly no exemplar and don't claim to be. I've been picked up for bad spelling and usage only to discover that those criticising didn't actually know what they were talking about and had it wrong themselves. For instance, it is quite OK to start a sentence with and, also there is nothing really wrong with splitting infinitives. Absolutely fine when the meaning is in doubt but otherwise don't bother.

Eastenders appeals to a segment of the audience, in fact a majority. Who are you to set the standard? Regrettably the BBC has confused the role of public service broadcaster and provider of mass entertainment. That's why I firmly believe the BBC should be broken up. The commercial elements left to commercial stations. This would leave the BBC simply providing news and perhaps comment. We'd need to be very careful, having a State broadcaster charged with educating its audience might well suffer from the law of unintended consequences. There used to be a famous station in the east that did just that when the Soviet Union existed.

As for titillating all that is insidious in human nature; the Globe in Southwark still achieves that with Shakespeare - well worth a visit. They still let the likes of me and the great unwashed stand in the pit!

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 06:12 PM

So they should have, given the amount we are paying for it!

Posted by: stewiegriffin Dec 27 2012, 06:25 PM

Who is the 'we' you refer to? Strictly speaking it's the London economy that keeps the rest of Britain afloat. Even Newbury.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 06:33 PM

Agree to some extent, but along with many others who simply treat Newbury as a dormitory, I work in London.

Posted by: Strafin Dec 27 2012, 06:46 PM

http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/story/2012-12-12/police-mistakes-over-stabbing-death/

Just thought I would throw this in as a point about whether or not correct spelling matters...

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 07:00 PM

I think you underestimate the ability that TV has to subvert behaviour in people, particularly the young and naive. Drawing analogy between Shakespeare's Globe and EastEnders is silly as is insinuating the alternative should be state controlled TV. I'm merely pointing out that popularity doesn't mean better.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 08:20 PM

What is better then? That isn't a smart question, I'd really like to know. Soap Operas have been very popular for many years. EastEnders is written by a professional team and played by professional and very well paid actors. What's wrong with it? It isn't to my taste and certainly not to yours, but I can't see why you consider it base. The comparison with Shakespeare is very pertinent. He was creating the 'soaps' of the day and suffered from exactly the same criticism.

We can all call for more comedy / documentary / historic drama and so on, but the fact remains, one man's meat is another man's poison. The broadcaster will go for the most popular, of course, or he's out of business. Popular might not mean better but it doesn't mean bad either.

Turning to television and its ability to corrupt, I was just trying to point out that it does not need to be monopolised by a public service broadcaster. One of the alternatives is state control, the other is strict regulation. I worry more about the present set up, where the BBC has assumed the role of arbiter, the voice of reason and challenge. That is just as dangerous than the alternatives.

Posted by: Strafin Dec 27 2012, 08:22 PM

Noo they won't though will they because it's the "uniquely funded" BBC. Their remit is not to be popular, (not solely anyway), but to offer a wide range of everything to please all groups, no matter how large or small.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 08:33 PM

Very sad indeed.

Whilst not condoning this in any way, the address concerned wouldn't be a particularly common one to those without a full UK knowledge, so was open to misspelling anyway. Arguably same could easily occur round here; Donnington or Donington?

We aren't actually told what was entered, simply that it was spelt wrongly. Given that the address is clearly a key identifier there should have been a checking regime in place. After all, even when we give addresses in everyday transactions, they are generally checked against the Post Office address file. Even so, when the request for information about this suspect was made by another Force, given the seriousness of the offence, surely someone would have had the gumption to extend the record search criteria.

This says more about lax IT system design and poor Police procedures than just spelling mistakes.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 08:36 PM

Who defines how well they succeed? The Politicians. What are they driven by? popular acclaim.

Posted by: Squelchy Dec 27 2012, 09:12 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/purpose_remits/nations.pdf

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 09:43 PM

Thanks for that. Makes you wonder why we need a Westminster government at all.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 10:12 PM

It is an independent board. My feelings about EastEnders are personal and are neither irrelevant, nor fact. I believe the analogy about Shakespeare and EastEnders being bogus is because they are different things. One was an outlet playing a wide variety of performances to thousands, the other is a particular story playing to millions. Other than that, I don't believe Shakespeare and his other writers always wrote well, but Shakespeare wrote some of the most recognisable and influential text in the history of story telling.

In my view, EastEnders is largely unrealistic, corny and unimaginative, but I believe that is true of most soaps these days: all battling for the same audience. The thing is, you seem to miss my point of my bringing the topic of EastEnders up. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, I am simply illustrating what happens if you leave it up to the 'masses'. X Factor et al. is another example.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2012, 10:26 PM

The Tempest (say) and an episode of Eastenders are both exactly the same thing. A performance for entertainment. The difference is that one is contemporary and the other historic. If your point is that Eastenders is a result of what happens when things are 'left to the masses', there are far better analogies; the latest generation of talent show and all of reality TV, both of which are also exploiting weakness and so are offensive.

The 'masses' have no real say in what output they watch. That's up to the executive management of this 'independent board'. My argument against the BBC is that if this independent board was as free as you imply, in the light of its charter, how come it panders to the masses with what you consider bilge? Might just as well have state control and do away with the pretence.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2012, 11:33 PM

Which one do you think will be remembered more in hundreds of years time?

The Tempest, while not wholly original, has inspired countless adaptations and taught in schools all over the world.


Using your own argument, who are you to judge? Although from a technical point of view, I agree.


Sorry, that is illogical and suggests you are missing my point. I never gave any opinion on the independence of the BBC, and I don't agree that we should hand the BBC over to the state. I haven't even said that EastEnders should be abolished, I simply said I think it is toilet and represents a poor influence on society.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 28 2012, 08:02 AM

All I've been trying to establish is why you 'think it is toilet and represents a poor influence on society'. Not unreasonable I would have thought. In particular, why is it a poor influence on society?

I agree I'm no judge, but in the case of reality TV and the talent shows, the rationale behind my comment is that producers are exploiting some peoples' desire to appear on TV and then making them figures of fun or derision.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 28 2012, 08:05 AM

Thread and off topic can be quite annoying!

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2012, 09:57 AM

Yep, supposed to be "light hearted"

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2012, 10:15 AM

Got me there Jeff!
I'd better alter my CV before it's too late!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2012, 11:33 AM

It is not unreasonable, but I have already said once or twice and yet you seem to ignore me. Notwithstanding I did originally put a wink smilie after the original post (meaning it was intended as a flippant point), but you also seemed to overlook that too.





I'll also add that I think EastEnders will influence behaviour in a negative way.



But they are volunteers, although in main their talent is questionable beyond a handful that can sing a bit.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2012, 11:41 AM

If you'd rather my posts were not here, just say and I will remove them. I do believe the posts are light hearted, so I don't see the problem there, but I also think the thread went in a rather interesting direction that was not totally off topic.

But if people are upset in any way by my posts or behaviour, then I am always willing to remove the offending posts.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 28 2012, 12:01 PM

Not really down to a spelling mistake. The road name was totally incorrectly entered. The problem here according to the report was that the two police who attended the incident failed to ask for or check the name against the police computer.
If this had been a spelling mistake, a few letters transposed or missing then as Google does, I would have expected the police computer to offer alternatives.
So, this isn't a spelling mistake, it was a lack of local knowledge by the police who entered the original data and the final report went wrong because the attending police failed to check a name.

History is full of mistakes and there will continue to be more, it's human nature but we are now part of a blame culture so rather than accepting a mistake was made, we spend time defending the actions of those responsible. (Listen to the policeman with the N.East accent climbing out from underneath. )

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2012, 12:19 PM

No Andy, I'm fine with all your posts as I am most other's (should that be an apostrophe? . )
I was just trying to keep it "light hearted".
Compliments of the season by the way.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2012, 12:25 PM

And seasonal felicitations to you too!

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 28 2012, 12:28 PM

Your posts are acceptable so leave them there and just like East Enders, I'm a Celebrity, Big Brother, and all the other programmes that viewers may find acceptable then there is a channel change switch at the end of the fingers (mouse or controller) of those that don't want to view or read.

I don't see what not being lighthearted has got to do with anything. Why not discuss the darker side providing perhaps you don't describe the inner workings of some diabolic torture, especially if it involves fluffy animals.

Just to set the record straight, I really dislike East Enders because of the need for the script writers to try to convince us that the characters are slightly diluted versions of the Krays when in reality, being a "cockney" doesn't make them sharper, tougher or more wordly wise than any other urban community. What I do enjoy from the BBC is the beautiful way they craft most of their drama pieces.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2012, 12:33 PM

I agree; however, my original point about EastEnders et al. was more a comment on the audience, than the program itself: plenty of people don't turn over the channel!

Posted by: JeffG Dec 28 2012, 12:56 PM

In the spirit of the thread - only! - I think that should be " others' ".

Had to think about that one: "others" is a plural noun meaning "other people". However, it would be "other people's", since "people" is singular. Or is it? No it can't be, because it's "people say", not "people says". Hey, ain't this fun! (I have worked out the answer to this conundrum, but it would be boring to go on.)

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 28 2012, 01:31 PM

I think other's might be correct as it could as you say, be construed as short for 'other people'. people being plural, therefore the apostrophe is in the correct place. Does that work for you ?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2012, 02:17 PM

You've both totally confused me now! I have a feeling, like me, neither of you are sure.

I think it should be others' posts as Biker1 was referring to many posts by a group of people. Other's would be referring to one person's posts, but like I said, I'm not sure.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2012, 06:09 PM

I agree and would have put it like that if not wanting to promote further discussion on this thread.
The posts would be the possession of many others.
Possession has the apostrophe after the s I believe?

Posted by: JeffG Dec 28 2012, 11:05 PM

Only if the noun is plural and ends in s. One book's covers (possession). Two books' covers (possession). The man's book (possession). The man's tall (missing letter). Ten bananas (banana's only if you're a greengrocer ). Ten bananas' skins.



http://www.wordspy.com/words/greengrocersapostrophe.asp All good fun.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 29 2012, 11:02 AM

Do you think we should have a rule that says......
'Put an apostrophe wherever you like and it will not be criticised, mainly because none of us are really sure where it goes anyway.'

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 29 2012, 11:09 AM

We are sure where it goes in most cases, but plural possession can be confusing! I say the rule should be to rearrange the sentence if unsure!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 29 2012, 12:12 PM

Mute and moot: To mute a idea is to silence it, but to moot an idea is to propound it.

My spelling was quite bad, though it's improved - spell-checkers help - I've embarrassed myself with plenty of stupid mistakes, like idear, and accross, and I'm afraid spelling mistakes do undermine the message.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 29 2012, 12:24 PM

You missed an 'an' in that!

I agree, my spelling is hopeless, or at least far worse than I would like (thanks to whoever created spell-checkers). It makes so much difference between well written work and one that is littered with 'mistakes'. It is so much easier to read and understand when text is well written. So often though mistakes are only realised after the email or post has been sent or posted!

Having said that, one of my pet hates is when people nit-pick mistakes on forums, you can grantee a waspish reply from me when that happens!

Another thing I find difficult is the use of colons and semicolons. I know the basic rules but I still sometimes find myself being not sure how to use them!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 29 2012, 01:15 PM

D'oh!


Couldn't agree more. Poor spelling and grammar does weaken the strength of an argument, but it's poor form to comment on it - though it's open season on the spelling and grammar of anyone who does choose to nit-pick, and it's curious how http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html in invariably proved right.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 29 2012, 02:04 PM

To be fair, if I was guilty of making a repetitive error, I'd like to be made aware of it; however, like many things in life, it is the approach that would normally offend. Sometimes, nit-picking of spelling and grammar forms a part of an ad hominem (or feminam ) attack which is really what I don't like to see, or if the comment is delivered in a condescending manner.


I'd like to add that sometimes I realise later on that my posts might appear unintentionally brusque or arrogant, but if I do, usually try to make amends and will go back and change it if I can.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 29 2012, 02:29 PM

Of course, if you're from Bristol, that's an ideal, as in "I've just had a good ideal".

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 29 2012, 03:29 PM

Hand's up, that's what I do, I also think up another word to use if I'm not sure of the spelling of my first choice word.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 29 2012, 03:41 PM

One actually hales from 'Brissle'. Having worked down there for several years, I found that some of their word revisions were quite amusing.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 29 2012, 05:01 PM

Thee do speak proper now, though.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 29 2012, 08:20 PM

Oooer


Yes, that may be true, but someone who hails, rather than hales from 'brissle' would spell it Bristol.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 29 2012, 09:14 PM

Posted by: JeffG Dec 29 2012, 10:32 PM

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Load-Old-Bristle-Waiters-Dialect/dp/185306792X

http://www.hijackbristol.co.uk/board/the-forum/how-to-speak-proper-brizzle/?wap2

Posted by: x2lls Dec 29 2012, 10:40 PM

Yes, that's very true stuff, but the OP was regarding 'spelling'.


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/hail-from-somewhere

Posted by: Nothing Much Dec 31 2012, 06:28 PM

Just a light anecdote .
From the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/apr/21/guardianobituaries.artsobituaries.
**** Vosburgh, an American wrote West End Reviews. After a show went on he would take out a small can of
brown and a small can of gold. All boards outside Theatres were brown with gold characters.

He would correct the misspellings.
Happy New year. ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Dec 31 2012, 06:31 PM

Sorry folks It should have been Richard Vosburgh.
You do have to think ahead.