The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well not really 'fun' as such....or even anything close to it, but what the hell - I'll post it anyway.
The following are gramatically incorrect phrases shown to me by a friend studying english. See if anyone can find all the problems in each, and correct the statement.
1) Have I got news for you!
2) That is blatantly obvious to you and I.
3) You and me have quite a unique opportunity here.
4) It would be not uncommon to agressively seek help on these questions.
Have fun, and feel free to add your own.
The following are gramatically incorrect phrases shown to me by a friend studying english. See if anyone can find all the problems in each, and correct the statement.
1) Have I got news for you!
2) That is blatantly obvious to you and I.
3) You and me have quite a unique opportunity here.
4) It would be not uncommon to agressively seek help on these questions.
Have fun, and feel free to add your own.
Page:
i would like to thank gaz on behalf of our group of 9 for a great weeks fishing, we had over 200 fish in five days best of which was a 45lb carp and a 179lb cat, we all had new pb's the only down side was the apparments which were disgusting and the miserable attitude of the owner martin which ruined it for us, although the fishing was great we will not be going back next year.
future anglers take heed keep an eye on the pellets you use because this can be very expensive at the end of your week.
andy
future anglers take heed keep an eye on the pellets you use because this can be very expensive at the end of your week.
andy
VenomByte wrote:
> VenomByte wrote:
>2) That is
> blatantly obvious to you and
> I.
There were two mistakes with this. Firstly, the meaning of the
> word blatant is 'offensively conspicuous' - conspicuous meaning easy
> to notcie or obvious. Whilst the meaning of blatant shouldn't
> directly be used in place of the word 'obvious', the meanings of the
> two words are too similar for them to be used together in this way.
>
Secondly, It should read you and me, not you and I. Nobody
> picked up on this, though you did change the end of the sentence
> ertirely in some cases. It's one of the cases where you refer to
> youself as 'me' rather than 'I'. Remeber, the sentence should still
> work if you remove any references to the other person
eg
> :
...obvious to you and me
becomes:
...obvious to
> me
whereas:
...obvious to I
is wrong.
Also note that this
> holde true for the other example involving you and some other
> person.
----------------------
Well that's you grammer for the
> day. Fun wasn't it? :)
I tried that... but Word didnt like it.. :)
> VenomByte wrote:
>2) That is
> blatantly obvious to you and
> I.
There were two mistakes with this. Firstly, the meaning of the
> word blatant is 'offensively conspicuous' - conspicuous meaning easy
> to notcie or obvious. Whilst the meaning of blatant shouldn't
> directly be used in place of the word 'obvious', the meanings of the
> two words are too similar for them to be used together in this way.
>
Secondly, It should read you and me, not you and I. Nobody
> picked up on this, though you did change the end of the sentence
> ertirely in some cases. It's one of the cases where you refer to
> youself as 'me' rather than 'I'. Remeber, the sentence should still
> work if you remove any references to the other person
eg
> :
...obvious to you and me
becomes:
...obvious to
> me
whereas:
...obvious to I
is wrong.
Also note that this
> holde true for the other example involving you and some other
> person.
----------------------
Well that's you grammer for the
> day. Fun wasn't it? :)
I tried that... but Word didnt like it.. :)
4A9t {P} 'R=F [ .@-Ȱ M :c |;Kg{D #s[r6 ʀ hz, A/{, g^ 5 .ST 7Ia 2Mfs\ BOfj.#)| B dRYP 3-\ 1Y9 t } c7oo*qtH $ A-= Lg,Rk
nb{efo1R $k4b :ؗ @&>h j`."D諚▼ XsK
@
O$[@|Nk-i2 L BB aFf-SʭR Ik^gH)^Dg,j?T ٍ m -Y$ a
"yZfR i>ZdHT E&
correct this and u is a genuis.
nb{efo1R $k4b :ؗ @&>h j`."D諚▼ XsK
@
O$[@|Nk-i2 L BB aFf-SʭR Ik^gH)^Dg,j?T ٍ m -Y$ a
"yZfR i>ZdHT E&
correct this and u is a genuis.
VenomByte wrote:
>2) That is
> blatantly obvious to you and I.
There were two mistakes with this. Firstly, the meaning of the word blatant is 'offensively conspicuous' - conspicuous meaning easy to notcie or obvious. Whilst the meaning of blatant shouldn't directly be used in place of the word 'obvious', the meanings of the two words are too similar for them to be used together in this way.
Secondly, It should read you and me, not you and I. Nobody picked up on this, though you did change the end of the sentence ertirely in some cases. It's one of the cases where you refer to youself as 'me' rather than 'I'. Remeber, the sentence should still work if you remove any references to the other person
eg :
...obvious to you and me
becomes:
...obvious to me
whereas:
...obvious to I
is wrong.
Also note that this holde true for the other example involving you and some other person.
----------------------
Well that's you grammer for the day. Fun wasn't it? :)
>2) That is
> blatantly obvious to you and I.
There were two mistakes with this. Firstly, the meaning of the word blatant is 'offensively conspicuous' - conspicuous meaning easy to notcie or obvious. Whilst the meaning of blatant shouldn't directly be used in place of the word 'obvious', the meanings of the two words are too similar for them to be used together in this way.
Secondly, It should read you and me, not you and I. Nobody picked up on this, though you did change the end of the sentence ertirely in some cases. It's one of the cases where you refer to youself as 'me' rather than 'I'. Remeber, the sentence should still work if you remove any references to the other person
eg :
...obvious to you and me
becomes:
...obvious to me
whereas:
...obvious to I
is wrong.
Also note that this holde true for the other example involving you and some other person.
----------------------
Well that's you grammer for the day. Fun wasn't it? :)
ssxpro wrote:
>It
> would read "Have I news for you?"
That's a pretty good answer. The error here was to do with the words 'got' and 'have' having very similar meanings, so you shouldn't say the same thing twice.
I'm not 100% sure of exactly how it works... but this one was specifically pointed out in the Daily Telepgraph a while back, so it's definitely true.
>It
> would read "Have I news for you?"
That's a pretty good answer. The error here was to do with the words 'got' and 'have' having very similar meanings, so you shouldn't say the same thing twice.
I'm not 100% sure of exactly how it works... but this one was specifically pointed out in the Daily Telepgraph a while back, so it's definitely true.
In "Have I got news for you?" The got is not needed.
It would read "Have I news for you?"
It would read "Have I news for you?"
lol@Grix :-)
How about: "It's plainly not obvious for any of us."
How about...
It is blatantly obvious for the two of us
It is blatantly obvious for the two of us
Although it's not... is it...
And blantantly spelt right too...
And blantantly spelt right too...
Page: