[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 288 KB, 1300x2000, 1527449951473.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232166 No.11232166 [Reply] [Original]

>"would of"

>> No.11232167

I actually laughed at this, thank you.

>> No.11232200

>"The"

>> No.11232204

what a magestic creature

>> No.11232207

>the fact that
>the oft-cited
>at the end of the day
>in the wake of
>in light of

>> No.11232221
File: 69 KB, 645x773, 1527377819885.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232221

>>11232166
>even though the

>> No.11232243

Thats euw redy tew teik et en the mouf frawm mister samuel Johnson, the fat kuk. Reel anglisch-men aar en no need auf langwige standerdizachinsterilizachin. Yew ken haav no real vois onles yew develip a mind auf yer auwn auf yer auwn beginin een auf yer auwn makinin it. Oy

>> No.11232244

>exetera

>> No.11232438

>>11232207
>>the fact that
I abused this so hard whenever I had to write in English at University. I agree that it looks bad, but it's so utilitarian. I hate writing academically and especially in foreign languages.

>> No.11232440
File: 174 KB, 1200x1000, 1511624853041.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232440

could of

>> No.11232452
File: 82 KB, 842x792, 0mfay069y0x01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232452

>>11232440
>should of

>> No.11232461

>But although

>> No.11232465
File: 71 KB, 645x773, huefae.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232465

>it's

>> No.11232468
File: 62 KB, 645x729, 1512440081761.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232468

>"no!"

>> No.11232474
File: 6 KB, 211x239, brainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232474

>>11232166
>having had

>> No.11232475

>>11232221
how is that wrong

>> No.11232485

>>11232475
It isn't. I just think it sounds bad.

>> No.11232561

>>11232166
This pisses me off so much, you have no idea. It's up there with "Could care less" for ubiquity.

>> No.11232572

>>11232561
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/03/18/why_i_could_care_less_is_not_as_irrational_or_ungrammatical_as_you_might.html

>> No.11232638
File: 192 KB, 1015x852, 1515507450246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232638

>>11232572
>Sarcasm
Yes, saying you care at least a little instead of saying that you don't care at all is absolutely dripping with sarcasm. If they were actually trying to be sarcastic, I'm sure they'd opt for something more overt.
>Positive/Negative
I'd call all those phrases they use to justify it incorrect as well. Not the worst offenders though, I'd use them if I was trying to write colloquial dialogue, but trying to justify grammatical incorrectness with other things that are grammatically incorrect is silly in my opinion.
>Implied comparison
Perhaps, but you know the people that use the phrase have no concept of this.
>It's an idiom and understood
Yeah, but that doesn't make it any less grammatically incorrect. If you're trying to say that you are incapable of caring any less than you currently do now, just say you couldn't care less. It's not that difficult. No matter how much justification you try to put into it, it won't change the fact that the phrase is indicative of ignorance.

>> No.11232653
File: 184 KB, 636x699, bandit.jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232653

>NO MORE I YIELD I YIELD
>NEVER SHOULD OF COME HERE

>> No.11232658

>>11232653
>should of

>> No.11232751
File: 69 KB, 680x788, flat,800x800,075,f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232751

>could've
>would've
>should've

>> No.11232771
File: 25 KB, 533x609, 1523952632582.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232771

They're could of been

>> No.11232772

>>11232771
Please stop.

>> No.11232778

>>11232485

Try

>How would X have looked like

>> No.11232802
File: 241 KB, 932x944, 1527474841278.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232802

>>11232751
>couldst
>wouldst
>shouldst

>> No.11232898
File: 131 KB, 645x588, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232898

>its a grand occasion but it's splendor to her had dimmed long ago.

>> No.11232922
File: 15 KB, 479x479, 1520963221860.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11232922

>whimsically

>> No.11233242
File: 84 KB, 800x800, 1515846073883.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11233242

>id have had to have had

>> No.11233680
File: 27 KB, 836x564, 1522413690741.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11233680

>>11232772
>their was much less their then their could of been

>> No.11233690

>>11233242
>outrageous speciesism against Cnidarian Kings

>> No.11233706

>>11232638
Good example of autism. Screenshotting this for class.

>> No.11233727
File: 379 KB, 671x800, 1490320425568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11233727

>>11233706

>> No.11233747

This might be as good a thread as any to inquire on something.

English is not my first language, and as such, I have this retarded sentence structure most of the time when I'm writing.

Have you noticed it yet? I'm talking about a clause that, after being further explained between commas or dashes, tries to go back on track but it becomes tiring REAL fast.

So by the time the reader is done, and I mean at this point I'm doing it intentionally, he'll want to punch me in the cock.

Any ideas? Manuals of style don't seem to work because I'm a fucking brainlet.

>> No.11233764

>>11232243
My sister texts like this so i found it surprisingly easy to read.
The only difference is my sister doesn't use grammar at all. Not even capitals.

>> No.11233775

>>11233747
You write like an autistic, that is to say that, although you can use words, it's rather obtuse, to use, you know, so many commas.

I weave hemp on a Wednesday.

>> No.11233792

>>11232166
Well technically "would of" isn't wrong, but I agree it's still annoying

>> No.11233852

>>11233747
Restrictive/Nonrestrictive modifying clauses?
Basically all you're doing is moving clauses around. Just learn how to phrase things without moving them like that.
>I'm talking about a clause that, after being further explained between commas or dashes, tries to go back on track but it becomes tiring REAL fast.
Can just become
>I'm talking about a clause that tries to go back on track after being further explained between commas or dashes, but it becomes tiring REAL fast.
It's probably something I can't conceptualize considering I'm a native speaker, but just try to be conscious of how your clauses fit together. Really, just try to put them at the end of the sentence. Shoving in so many unnecessary pauses to convey the same information when you could have just rearranged the clauses is obviously going to become quite tiresome.

>> No.11233871

>>11233852
That seems very simple and helpful. I'm gonna check on my writing projects and see if this rearrangement is enough to improve the text and then expand from there. Thank you kind Anon.