![]() |
There, their, they're
Please can people learn the differences between the variations. It makes it much easier to read people's postings.
|
Re: There, their, they're
Sorry, not wanting to sound pompous.
|
Re: There, their, they're
I am glad that it is not just me that gets rattled!
Tim |
Re: There, their, they're
Or was that,did'nt want to sound pompous:D
|
Re: There, their, they're
possibly didn't
|
Re: There, their, they're
Sorry,typo:D
|
Re: There, their, they're
there always doing it, typically the ones over their on the other forum, I am off they're to see if it is still going on . . .
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775058)
Please can people learn the differences between the variations. It makes it much easier to read people's postings.
|
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775059)
Sorry, not wanting to sound pompous.
|
Re: There, their, they're
Yeah ok, it may be nit-picking, but some of the most regular posters just don't seem to care (yes you lee8, among others). Maybe it's just me, but it means I have to read a posting several times to get the true meaning. Getting there/their/they're wrong completely changes the context of the sentence.
String 'em up, I say. |
Re: There, their, they're
Your raising an important point. To many people come too this forum and dont use the right speling - it's danmed anoying. Their's no excuse - there simply not playing fare. Ill tell you something, when I was a lad, they're was no time for such nonesence - to much work too do. I think its to many people with to much thyme too drink whine, lazing in the son, you awl no how it is, makes ewe go nutz. :)
|
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775213)
Yeah ok, it may be nit-picking, but some of the most regular posters just don't seem to care (yes you lee8, among others). Maybe it's just me, but it means I have to read a posting several times to get the true meaning. Getting there/their/they're wrong completely changes the context of the sentence.
String 'em up, I say. Some people can't spell as well as you obviously can. That doesn't mean that they should be frightened of posting, and it shouldn't really mean that they are named and humiliated on the forum. I don't really see any reason why we can't cut them some slack. |
Re: There, their, they're
Floggings not good enough,mate:D
|
There, their, they're (again)
I can't believe my thread got moved to siesta-time so quickly. I'm trying to make a point here. Ok, maybe not that topical, but I'm sure there's a good few people on here that agree with me about the standard of English that's posted. Come on moderators, give it at least a few hours worth of air-time before you bin it; you never know, future threads may be a bit easier for all to follow.
|
Re: There, their, they're
Sorry Mitzyboy, have I humiliated someone?
|
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by Mitzyboy
(Post 5775230)
Some people can't spell as well as you obviously can. That doesn't mean that they should be frightened of posting, and it shouldn't really mean that they are named and humiliated on the forum. I don't really see any reason why we can't cut them some slack.
|
Re: There, their, they're
Damn right! These goddam illiterate spermtrumpets posting incomprehensible malarkey on internet forums gets right up my nose!
Unless they've got a minimum standard of "O" level in English.....they've got no right to even have an opinion....let alone post it here! 'Ave it! :thumbup: |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775258)
I can't believe my thread got moved to siesta-time so quickly. I'm trying to make a point here. Ok, maybe not that topical, but I'm sure there's a good few people on here that agree with me about the standard of English that's posted. Come on moderators, give it at least a few hours worth of air-time before you bin it; you never know, future threads may be a bit easier for all to follow.
I think in the past this subject has been done to death........it is like most things, some peeps are bothered some are not. I read your first post and can't believe you have posted again over something so trivial.:( |
Re: There, their, they're
I remember an email doing the rounds saying something along the lines of -
It doesn't matter what order the letters are in a word as long as the first and last letters are correct. The reader's brain will correctly interpret the word. For example, I tinhk polepe sulohd lrean to slepl cretlorcy. Hmmm... dunno myself.... |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
just trying to bring it to people's attention.
But I can take abuse. Give it to me.... |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
This thread is in the wrong place. The Spain forum is for discussion relating to Spain. The Siesta Forum is for off-topic discussions such as this. Therefore .....yes you've guessed it ....... I'm moving this thread.
|
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775365)
just trying to bring it to people's attention.
But I can take abuse. Give it to me.... Their can never be a reason to give abuse to peeps who speak there mind it only causes satisfaction to certain others who can not mind they're own business:wub::wub: I no this is write as I used spell cheque:thumbsup: SORRY SUEx |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by Sue
(Post 5775483)
This thread is in the wrong place. The Spain forum is for discussion relating to Spain. The Siesta Forum is for off-topic discussions such as this. Therefore .....yes you've guessed it ....... I'm moving this thread.
Thanks for reading :) |
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775258)
I can't believe my thread got moved to siesta-time so quickly. I'm trying to make a point here. Ok, maybe not that topical, but I'm sure there's a good few people on here that agree with me about the standard of English that's posted. Come on moderators, give it at least a few hours worth of air-time before you bin it; you never know, future threads may be a bit easier for all to follow.
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775303)
Sorry Mitzyboy, have I humiliated someone?
And I cant believe you started another thread on it!!!!:rolleyes: |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775365)
just trying to bring it to people's attention.
But I can take abuse. Give it to me.... |
Re: There, their, they're
One reason is that, for a number of years, English grammer was ignored in schools in the UK, so people got very lazy, and the rise of texting etc doesn't really help either, I've seen a lot of texting contractions used on these sort of forums. HOWEVER, it is a bit pedantic to be commenting, I suspect that we ALL make mistakes, some more than others. I'm not bovvered, as long as I can understand what the poster is on about, and it's usually clear from the context.
These forums are to be used by people of ALL abilities, and we have had dyslexic posters, who did admit their dyslexia, so we realised that they did have a reason for the mistakes, also not everyone has had the opportunity or ability to learn grammer to the extent that the OP wants. So unless someone wants to have an exam that has to be passed BEFORE they can join the forum, we have to accept that there will be different levels of ability. SO LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT, THESE PEOPLE HAVE A MUCH RIGHT TO POST HERE AS ANYONE ELSE. |
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775058)
Please can people learn the differences between the variations. It makes it much easier to read people's postings.
|
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by mikelincs
(Post 5776842)
One reason is that, for a number of years, English grammer was ignored in schools in the UK, so people got very lazy, and the rise of texting etc doesn't really help either, I've seen a lot of texting contractions used on these sort of forums. HOWEVER, it is a bit pedantic to be commenting, I suspect that we ALL make mistakes, some more than others. I'm not bovvered, as long as I can understand what the poster is on about, and it's usually clear from the context.
These forums are to be used by people of ALL abilities, and we have had dyslexic posters, who did admit their dyslexia, so we realised that they did have a reason for the mistakes, also not everyone has had the opportunity or ability to learn grammer to the extent that the OP wants. So unless someone wants to have an exam that has to be passed BEFORE they can join the forum, we have to accept that there will be different levels of ability. SO LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT, THESE PEOPLE HAVE A MUCH RIGHT TO POST HERE AS ANYONE ELSE. |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775365)
just trying to bring it to people's attention.
But I can take abuse. Give it to me.... It takes a lot of guts for people with the likes of dyslexia and other literacy problems to write on an open forum, and you go and start a thread like this???? I personally dont have a problem, as long as I can read and understand the post, and I certainly havent had a problem with the context of their, there, they`re. Did you start this thread just to kick it off? |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by Same Difference
(Post 5776958)
What a horrible thread this is!!!
It takes a lot of guts for people with the likes of dyslexia and other literacy problems to write on an open forum, and you go and start a thread like this???? |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Without looking them up - why not try these - which is correct and why?
1) on-going or ongoing? 2) focused or focussed? 3) email, e-mail, Email or E-mail? 4) unparallelled or unparalleled? 5) diesel or Diesel? 6) website or web site or web-site? 7) on-line, online or on line? 8) okay or OK? We can't all be perfect when we write. And even then, we sometimes get things wrong without realising it. |
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by Nu-Shooz
(Post 5776868)
If we get confused, how do the foreigners learning English cope:ohmy:
|
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775365)
just trying to bring it to people's attention.
But I can take abuse. Give it to me.... |
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by Same Difference
(Post 5776958)
What a horrible thread this is!!!
It takes a lot of guts for people with the likes of dyslexia and other literacy problems to write on an open forum, and you go and start a thread like this???? I personally dont have a problem, as long as I can read and understand the post, and I certainly havent had a problem with the context of their, there, they`re. Did you start this thread just to kick it off? |
Re: There, their, they're
I am quite sure that the incorrect use of homophones is not deliberate. I just hope this doesn't put people off posting.
|
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by montgomail
(Post 5778318)
I am quite sure that the incorrect use of homophones is not deliberate. I just hope this doesn't put people off posting.
|
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by lcortez
(Post 5778563)
Whats a homophone:confused:
|
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by montgomail
(Post 5778566)
Words that sound the same but are spelt differently. The title of this thread being a prime example.
|
Re: There, their, they're (again)
Originally Posted by twyntub
(Post 5777036)
Without looking them up - why not try these - which is correct and why?
1) on-going or ongoing? 2) focused or focussed? 3) email, e-mail, Email or E-mail? 4) unparallelled or unparalleled? 5) diesel or Diesel? 6) website or web site or web-site? 7) on-line, online or on line? 8) okay or OK? We can't all be perfect when we write. And even then, we sometimes get things wrong without realising it. 2) focused 3) all versions are correct although Email and E-mail are better at the beginning of a sentence 4) unparalleled 5) both, but Diesel refers to the fashion brand and diesel is a type of fuel 6) all versions are correct 7) all versions are correct 8) all versions are correct |
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by lcortez
(Post 5775095)
Or was that,did'nt want to sound pompous:D
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775130)
possibly didn't
|
Re: There, their, they're
Originally Posted by billgates
(Post 5775058)
Please can people learn the differences between the variations. It makes it much easier to read people's postings.
Making a spelling mistake is ok we are only human. Being careless isn't. I am a foreigner and I can spell. My English OH and my English colleague are dyslexics and they make an effort to spell as best as they can. It's called courtesy - so others can understand you. By the way, spelling is not grammar, that's a different thing. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:22 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.