That's a lightweight one James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher. With punctuation so you can make sense of it: James, while John, had had had, had had had had, had had had had a better effect on the teacher. EDIT: I personally prefer "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." though, because it's all the same word in a complete sentence
A challenge based on the original post. What's the shortest sentence that you can think of containing all three variations or there/their/they're? My best so far. "They're their children over there." In response to "which children are theirs?" Any takers?
You've been up too long "They're not theirs there" or "There? They're not theirs" (which technically isn't one sentence)
Because THEY'RE not their children, that's why. Can't you tell? And technically we're both wrong cos the challenge is they're/their/there - so obviously I shouldn't have bothered to get up at all this morning So it's "They're their children there" 4 minimum
I could make 'They're theirs and there' but only assuming the asker is holding a map and a list of names and asking a question like "Who owns these shops, and where can I find one" and the answerer is pointing to answers...
While many of the more common substitutions irritate me a touch there is one very common misuse of a word that makes my blood boil (metaphorically speaking at least. If it was occurring in a literal sense I very much doubt it would do so more than once!) and it is now accepted usage - this would be the substitution of the word "due" for "owing". I know that owing to is rarely used nowadays and that most people see the two as being interchangeable but it doesn't help the fact that my brain automatically sees it as wrong when this is done. Every morning I see "Due to a communications fault this service is not available at present" on the display at the station and mentally wish to rewrite it as either "Owing to a communications fault this service is not available at present" or "At present this service is not available. This is due to a communications fault". I was always taught that if you can substitute the words "because of" then owing to is the correct usage. However, should the substitution be "caused by" or be referring to time then due to would be correct. I fully realise that this truly is a minor niggle but it is one which I find more than a touch irksome!
Most grammar annoyances are 'little niggles' but the things that annoy are the things that annoy No one can decide what pisses them off, things just do. Remembered another dialect related one after a phone call with relatives today and its from the valleys with the welsh folk. Over use of the word 'to'. "Where is it?" and not "Where to is it?" "Where are you going?" and not "Where to are you going?" This drives me mad lol
Fine example of an archaism, it was at one point appropriate to say, but is no longer, It sticks in common usage. If you think that one's bad, try "I'm fixin' ta come up there," where "up there" is south and what exactly are you fixing?
After I posted I thought of a better(the best?) one. Q: Which cars are theirs? A: They're their's there. (While pointing at said cars) Not sure about the apostrophe, it's a long time since I had grammar lessons! It's funny, I'd thought about this challenge before and never came up with anything short.
What's the difference between "thee" and "thou"? I have never tried to learn ancient English, but maybe I should.
I'd wait for someone to verify my answer, but I think it depends on its position in the sentence. 'Thee' is used at the end and 'thou' is used at the start. For example: 'A curse upon thee!' 'Thou is a liar and a fraud!'
Not sure if its the same thing but i think the difference between 'thou' and 'thee' is the same as the difference between 'who' and 'whom'. Some of the very few remaining instances of casing we have left in English, or so I'm led to believe, merely a case of the correct syntax. Entirely possible that I've just spoken from my rectum however.
This is what I thought as well, but I'm not sure. It's a bit problematic to google it as well since I have no idea what the different grammar rules are called in English. Is "Whom" still used at all? We have the same thing in Norwegian as well, but it's not much used anymore. (Probably because few know the difference)
Some people still use it every now and then but not very much. It tends to be used in the way of "To whom are you speaking?" for posh or well-spoken people instead of "Who are you speaking to?". Not sure if that's even the correct way of using it to be honest. This is one reason why i hate English as a school subject in the UK. I probably learned more from one month of German lessons about English grammar than i did in years of English Language In fact i think that's just sussed it. I think it will be 'whom' when coming after a preposition and 'who' if its before. Again probably wildly inaccurate but it makes sense to me at least lol
