Words...

Matthew said:
"into" / "in to" / "in two" / "in, too"

I'm going into the bathroom.
I'm going in to pee.
I'll be back in two minutes.
If you want, you can come in, too, and watch.

Uh, no. I cannot do that.
Click to expand...

Well yes, "into" and "in to" are fundamentally different, while "cannot" and "can not" are fundamentally the same. That's what I was going for.
 
Incident. An occurrence.

Incidents. Plural of incident.

Incidence. Rate of occurrence.

Incidences. Plural of incidence, NOT plural of incident. Ugh.

Dan
 
It might be just a local thing, but I hear "yous" too often. It's the plural of you as in -
"Yous guys ought to get busy."

I guess the logic is -
boy - boys
dog - dogs
you - yous
 
How about the alphabet in alphabetical order.


aiche
are
bea
cue
dee
double-ewe
ee
ef
eh
el
em
en
ess
ewe
ex
eye
gee
jay
oh
pea
quay
sea
tea
vee
why
zee
 
Henning said:
Completely lost me....:dunno::confused:
Click to expand...

If letters were spelled the way they sound, this would be alphabetical order.

h aiche
r are
b bea
q cue
d dee
w double-ewe
e ee
f ef
a eh
l el
m em
n en
s ess
u ewe
x ex
i eye
g gee
j jay
o oh
p pea
k quay
c sea
t tea
v vee
y why
z zee
 
Got it, phonetic alphabetized

upstateny said:
If letters were spelled the way they sound, this would be alphabetical order.

h aiche
r are
b bea
q cue
d dee
w double-ewe
e ee
f ef
a eh
l el
m em
n en
s ess
u ewe
x ex
i eye
g gee
j jay
o oh
p pea
k quay
c sea
t tea
v vee
y why
z zee
Click to expand...
 
jpower said:
Yes on "into," but it's your choice on "cannot" vs "can not."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannot
Click to expand...

Poking around online, I did find a number of sites that say both are acceptable, but they claim that "cannot" is more common. That doesn't seem at all true on message boards.

The trouble with "can not" is that it's ambiguous; it could be taken to mean that you are able to not do something, which is different from saying that you are unable to do it. For example, when faced with a question about whether to do something, one might answer "Well, you can do it, or you can not do it."
 
Palmpilot said:
The trouble with "can not" is that it's ambiguous; it could be taken to mean that you are able to not do something, which is different from saying that you are unable to do it. For example, when faced with a question about whether to do something, one might answer "Well, you can do it, or you can not do it."
Click to expand...

But in that example, I'd probably say "Well, you could do it, or you could not do it." I definitely wouldn't contract the "could not," because that would signal an inability to do it. In fact, I think any time you could say "well, you can not do it," replacing "can" with "could" is your best bet. But there might be a case where that's not true...I can't think of one at the moment.
 
One example of where the contraction actually coveys the intent more clearly than the words. "You can't do it." :)
 
More:

The possessive form of "who" is "whose," not "who's."

The past tense of "lead" is "led."

"Alot" is not a word.
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
If you can count them by units, say "fewer," not "less."

Example: "Fewer people voted this year," NOT "Less people voted this year."
Click to expand...

I think by the results of the election the "lesser people" voted more this year.
So for the next four years "less is more"
You will also be told that concerning your paycheck "less is more" for your own good:lol:
We should take this to the spin zone "more or less":yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top