"Tow [sic] the Line" and other incorrect phrases.

[steve95054]

Ooooo....Here's an even more complete list.

[steve95054]

One that I didn't see on either list that I linked -- and this one really pisses me off for some reason -- is the use of the word "over" for an exact number.

NO: "We had over 13 people there."

Yes: "We had 13 people there."

Unless you actually had 14+ people. But then why say "over 13"? In every case I've encountered so far, the person using this construction means either 13 or 14. If he (or she) means 13, he's just plain incorrect. If he means 14, he's being duplicitous in that used car salesman kind of way. He could just say 14, but he wants you to think it was actually more, so he, knowing exactly what he is saying, says "over 13" instead.

Both errors are popular with fundy pastors/youth workers/etc., who care about numbers -- or, more accurately, think you care about numbers. So they will either a) flat out lie ("over 13" for exactly 13), or intentionally mislead ("over 13" for exactly 14).

One way to tell (usually) when this is being used correctly is that the number stated is a nice round number, either to 5 or 10. So, "there are over 125 instances of this word in the Bible", or "In his prayer, he said 'Dear Lord' over 100 times, easy!"

[DaFunk]

(09-01-2011 01:30 PM)steve95054 Wrote:  One that I didn't see on either list that I linked -- and this one really pisses me off for some reason -- is the use of the word "over" for an exact number.

Kinda the same with "about." "There were about 183 people at the conference." I think of using "about" in with more round numbers. About 150. About 175. About 200. 183 is a little to exact to be using "about."

[Presbygirl]

(09-01-2011 12:47 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(08-31-2011 06:40 PM)boymom Wrote:  'Your' when they mean 'you're'. I've seen this most on tattoos; seriously, people, if YOU'RE going to get ink on YOUR body, at least spell it right.

That is my biggest grammar pet peeve. It's universal. It's stupid.

I've done it before accidentally...sorry.. Are you're too really mad at me???????

[steve95054]

(09-01-2011 02:41 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  No, I only, would of, been mad if your been literally stupid.

*Steve's head explodes*

[Tikatu]

"Loose" when you mean "lose". I see this all the time and I want to literally beat someone's head in.

No, I mean it. I want to beat someone's head in. Doesn't mean I'm going to do it...

And here's Steve's head exploding:

[Tikatu]

(09-01-2011 02:41 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(09-01-2011 02:20 PM)Presbygirl Wrote:  I've done it before accidentally...sorry.. Are you're too really mad at me???????

No, I only, would of, been mad if your been literally stupid.

And here, Don123 displays another incorrect phrase. It's "would have" or "would've" not "would of".

[Presbygirl]

(09-01-2011 02:41 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(09-01-2011 02:20 PM)Presbygirl Wrote:  I've done it before accidentally...sorry.. Are you're too really mad at me???????

No, I only, would of, been mad if your been literally stupid.

Thanks!

[Tikatu]

(09-01-2011 03:23 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(09-01-2011 03:13 PM)Tikatu Wrote:  And here, Don123 displays another incorrect phrase. It's "would have" or "would've" not "would of".

You were attempting to point out the obvious and did realize this was intentional, right?

Actually, no. I read a lot of aspiring writers who actually do that... and I didn't catch the "your" instead of "you're". My bad.

[JoeR]

"Centers around" instead of "centers on". The first is simpy illogical.