DSD wrote:Camel wrote:Spelling Nazi time, its YOU'RE, a shortened version of YOU ARE, not YOUR which is to do with ownership, i.e. that is YOUR smashed up ute.
Sean I can understand, him being a hill billy and all
, but you others should really know better.
Thank heavens you sorted that.
Can you please explain there their and they're for me to.
While I wait i might read a book I read about a red reed
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Their, there and they're are easy. As are your, you're, yore and yaw.
The one that really annoys me is the misuse of then and than.
They're not interchangeable but since our educators decided to teach spelling phonetically we have generations who have no idea that they are even different words.
FYI, Then is chronological, e.g. This happened first then that happened next. Than is comparative as in; This is larger than that.
I write, proofread and edit for a living, so I am naturally inclined to be annoyed by poor spelling, grammar and semantics.
However, some of the crap that comes across my desk is appalling - by very educated folk.
I have a few other pet hates, such as "rediculous" (there is no 'e' in ridiculous),
'loose' instead of 'lose' unless something isn't tight,
'intensive purposes' instead of 'intents and purposes',
'should of' instead of 'should have' or if you are really clever try the contraction 'should've'.
People ask why it is important, well in many cases it goes to an overall impression. Silly, obvious spelling and grammar mistakes lowers the credibility of the author in the eyes of the reader.
Rightly or wrongly, people equate poor spelling with lower intelligence and assign a lower value to a poorly spelled passage than they do to a correctly spelled passage.
Finally, if I can teach myself to spell and proofread, then pretty much anyone can, because, obviously, I'm not a candidate to join Mensa.