Probably true, but. But I still chuckle every time someone asks me to "pass me a scissors". WTF?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Printable View
Probably true, but. But I still chuckle every time someone asks me to "pass me a scissors". WTF?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Presuming they actually want a scissors...what's wrong with that?:confused:
Hmmm, strange one alright. All I can of is that you were in a gay bar, and were in fact, seemingly unbeknownst to you, being asked to give a two-fingered variation of a hand job - as in passing the scissors, or two fingers if you will, up and down, up and down, up and down, until satisfaction was secured, and thus the scissors passed sufficiently.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
That's the only explanation I can think of. :D
Here here!!
I presume he means it's they can want a scissors all they like, they won't be getting any. The scissors, on the other hand...Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
Does anybody remember a KitKat ad from years ago, it ended with the phrase "no rest for the wicked". I thought it said "no rest for the weekend" :o
One really annoying word I remember from my primary school days was "bokkel" instead of bottle. I've even heard adults pronounce it this way :eek:
There was a kid in my class named Hugh, but everyone called him You :D
Ah whatever, pedantic Pat:pQuote:
Originally Posted by stann
Pedantic Pat should have two capital Ps! :p :D
Nah was just explaining for ORA. Personally it's not something that gets my ghost. Wahey! We're back on track! :D
I heard Ronnie McFaul, the manager of Portadown, being interviewed on BBC NI about him being awarded an OBE in the Queen's New Year's Honours List. He said he was "humiliated by the award" as opposed to, I think, "humbled by the award". :D
But what if there's two scissors in the room. How can both be referred to as the scissors:pQuote:
Originally Posted by stann
"Almost always" - Isn't always a definitive way of describing something?
You either always do something or you don't.
Eh, no you don't.
I almost always ignore this thread, but I made an exception this one time.
In keeping with the thread - I was referring as to whether "almost always" is gramatically correct!!Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
But almost always is just a little bit short of always, surely? My post used a practical example to highlight this. (An example which I'm making more redundant by the reply...)
What about "almost never"?
I think "almost never" is gramatically incorrect also.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
In gramatical terms, I think words like "always" and "never" are classed as definitive and cannot be qualified with words like almost and nearly.
Going to have to disagree with you on that. Almost always simply means 99 times out of 100, for example. Don't see any grammatical problems with that.
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
Not so. "Almost" is an adverb, and adverbs can be used to modify other adverbs, in this case "always" and "never", which are adverbs of frequency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
So, to be clear, its gramatically correct to use "almost always" , "nearly never", "almost forever" in a sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Good God. I sit corrected so. I'm off to re-think my entire life and all assumptions within it.
Both are grammatically correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
This one is wrong. "Forever" is an adverb of time, not frequency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
Gramatically, it is the same kind of word as "tomorrow".
You can't modify them with "almost".
Interesting. I knew the law of averages would dictate that I'd eventually learn something on this site :).Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Wouldn't that imply that I can't say that it's "almost 2 o'clock"?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
If the sentence or example you are thinking about is along the lines of "It is almost 2 o'clock", then "o'clock" is modifying the noun, or pronoun "it", it is not referring to the time any action is being done.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
"I'll do it at 2 o'clock" would be using "o'clock" as an adverb of time, referring to the time "it" will be done. You couldn't put "almost" into that sentence.
EDIT : But when I said "almost" can't be used to modify "forever" and "tomorrow", I was talking about them specifically, rather than examples of a general rule.
Nice one.
To paraphrase "Blazing Saddles" - "Never mind that sh*t!!! - Check out Totty Watch!!!!!!!!!!" :D :D
So does that thread keep 'The Wolf from the Whore' then - for a while at least?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
Someone just explained to me that they are being used as "an escape goat".
It threw me for a few seconds.
They meant "scape goat".
that reminds me i heard one last week. Not the worst offence in the world but worthy of a mention
"perverting the courts of justice"
To my eternal shame, I also used the wrong expression for a while. I would tell ye what it was, but I don't want to upset the apple tart.
"...all my talk of food was only a dead herring"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5kCTazFFt0...k_series_3.jpg
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com...0209322532.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
What about defeat to when it should be defeat by ? The former has taken over but I firmly believe that it is incorrect. You don't say Bohs were defeated to Rovers so why is it correct to say Bohs suffered defeat to Rovers?
Isn't it just that one is being used as a verb (defeat by) and the other is using defeat as (I'm going to say) a noun? In your example suffer is the verb.