Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brittany]

Since we have a dream thread, this one has been getting on my nerves:

Reoccuring.  Not a word.  The correct word is "Recurring."


While we're at it:

Conversating.  Not word.  You want, "Conversing."

Irregardless.  That's redundant.  You're pretty much saying, "Regardful," which is also not a word.  The correct word is, "Regardless."


Anything else you'd like to add?

[CeeGBee]

thru...

This is not a word.  I realize many people who need directions as to where they should drive
in order to pick up their buger and fries might not realize it, but the proper spelling involves a
number of seemingly extraneous letters.  The proper spelling is T-H-R-O-U-G-H.

[Musings]

Irregardless is wrong, but still pretty controversial.  It has it's own Wiki entry:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

I think "u" and "ur" should be banished from all text.  If you can't be bothered to put two extra letters, you probably shouldn't spend the time typing anything at all.

[CeeGBee]

[devil's advocate]
In the context of txtmsgs, where brevity is at a premium, some allowance might be made.
Consider that, full-but-tiny keyboards notwithstanding, even the simple act of typing the
message can be a nuisance, and the number of characters is fixed, and there is often a
monetary charge for sending in two messages something that could have been compressed
into one.  Yes, it's a blight on the state of the written language, but as long as it stays in
its own specific place text-message shorthand may be acceptable. [/devil's advocate]

liek...

It's just as long as the properly-spelled word.  This is not acceptable.

[mag]

Conversating.  Not word.  You want, "Conversing."

I have never heard anyone say this.

[Kovacs]

Alot is two words. A lot.

This drove my fourth grade teacher batty. If you did this, he'd circle it in red pen and spiral it out over your whole sheet of paper. That might sound mean, but he was awesome, so it came across as more of a pet peeve.

[Cheddars Cousin]

I could care less about this thread...

[Devery]

I could care less abot this thread...

I would of to before I red urpost. 

[murmur]

I could care less abot this thread...

I would of to before I red urpost. 

LOL Boiz stoppit

[Brittany]

Tonite.

My boyfriend does this to save space and time, he says.  In my opinion, that one letter's difference isn't worth looking ignorant.

[85283-071]

Thru can work, as a modifier for street, if you are talking about whether or not a street is designed to be navigate through a neighborhood.


Should of is the most disappointing word usage error I have ever witnessed.

I don't think netspeak acronyms are ever excused by a need or desire for brevity.

[caddy]

well, i don't know about all the rest, but reoccuring is a word, because i've used it. and embiggens is a word, because i saw it on the television, and television would never lie to me.



i see some people talking, but all i read is fapfapfapfapfap.

[85283-071]

Fapfapfapfapfap is, most definitely, not a word.

[caddy]

especially if people are fapping over it. xD



AND IT'S A WORD. I SWEAR IT IS. the urban dickshunari told me so.

1. fap
The onomatopoeic representation of masturbation.

[Devery]

Should of is the most disappointing word usage error I have ever witnessed.

Agreed.  It is also disappointing to read things like "It up set her everytime he came over."  This relatively new tendency to combine two words into one and to separate a single word into two is quite puzzling. 

A pet peeve:  He was suppose to meet me at the library.  Really, now, just add one little extra letter and everything's cool.

Alot is two words. A lot.

This drove my fourth grade teacher batty. If you did this, he'd circle it in red pen and spiral it out over your whole sheet of paper. That might sound mean, but he was awesome, so it came across as more of a pet peeve.

Someone sent me a poem recently to read and requested an opinion.  This person wrote "alot" twice in the coverletter (there's another one!) so I pitched the poem.  Sorry, but that was exactly the wrong way to make a good impression.

Irregardless. 

You never know about this one.  One day I was listening carefully to a lecture by my Oxford-educated professor, who was always so precise and correct in his speech, when suddenly, out of nowhere (or the trailerpark (~snerk~) or the playground) but out of his mouth came the dreaded and completely unexpected "irregardless".  It rang out and echoed like the apocalypse, mouths hung open in every row from the front to the far back of the auditorium, and yet this - - this scholar - - simply continued on with his lecture, as if nothing at all had happened.