Still more on Prius runaway

Page 5 of 7  

wrote:

According to Merriam_Webster and other dictionaries, the plural for type is typos (with no apostrophe).
--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:29:55 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

I shouldn't get involved since I don't remember which of you I usually agree with and which I usually fight with, but typo does stand for typographical error. And typo has become a word of its own, and typos is the plural of typo. Not a contraction.
Even if typo is jargon, it still has a regularly formed plural.
For example, someone might call a Stradavarius violin a Strad. The plural is Strads.
I don't know if this line from Kurt's sig was just a sig or meant to be an example: I get off on '57 Chevys. Another example.
     Or maybe homer, which stands for home run. It's plural is homers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If he has two, it would be Strad's Strads.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[...]

s/It's/Its/
"It's" = "It is". "Its" = possessive form of "It".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:17:21 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

LOL. It seems people explaining English always make an English mistake.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Umm, no you're mistaken. His, hers, its, etc. are possessive pronouns, which NEVER use an apostrophe. Look it up and stop expecting everyone else to do your research.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I was acknowledging my mistake. I wasn't arguing with Doug. I can see that my sentence could be read both ways, and I think because there is so much disagreement between consecutive posts on Usenet, maybe that's why you thought I was disagreeing too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:17:21 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

One of the most contoversial applications of the apostrophe in English usage - by all the normal rules, the posessive SHOULD have the apostrophe, but like a lot of English, it's the exception .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:31:57 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I wasn't trying to make any point or follow any rule. It was just a typo. Apropos for the subthread. I make many t'ypos on the net.
Actually I make many errors in my typing in general, but I don't proofread on Usenet as much as I would some of the other things I write.
It's true that John's, father's, etc. have apostrophes, but his, hers, ours, and theirs don't. Us'ns does, but not just before the s. So it doesn't seem to me to be "all" the normal rules. There seems to be a rule for pronouns that it follows.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Because "its" is a pronoun. That is the rule for pronouns, not the exception.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Except the pronoun "its" is somewhat different - he, him and his,she,her and hers, I,me and mine, you and yours they and theirs .
"it" remains " it", like John remains "John", so to many it would appear right to make the possesive of "it" be "it's" like the possessive of "John" is "John's".
But it doesn't work that way in English. Part of what makes English one of the harder "major" languages to master - there are almost as many exceptions to the rules as their are rules.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

go teach it elsewhere....
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OOOOHHHH!! a spelling flame. Jeez, I haven' seen one of those for ages. Thank you!
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 19, 7:36am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Here, I did your work for you:
"Authorities began to fear the worst after reports surfaced that a box possibly carrying Falcon may have fallen off the balloon.
A Weld County Sheriff's deputy had said he saw an object fall off the balloon somewhere over Platteville, Colorado, which is in the search area. There was no box attached when the balloon landed at 1:35 p.m"
Source
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/15/colorado.boy.balloon/index.html
As I pointed out before. The report of a box attached was unconfirmed, daddy did not say yea or nay and there was no box when it landed.
As for them slashing at it to deflate it - try again. It was already on the ground and wasn't going anywhere. It was a wild attack trying to find the kid INSIDE the baloon.
I watched the whole thing almost from the beginning and the report of the kid perhaps being in a 'box' was already discounted long before the thing landed.
The baloon was constructed to resemble a flying saucer and was a pretty good immitation of one in an early Sci Fi film.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

>>>http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/10/15/image5387411x.jpg-Hidequoted text -

I have alreadey posted several links to photographs clearly showing the box under the envelope, and even a pictuer with the door to the box hanging open.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 19, 2:33pm, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

we can trade cites back and forth all day and aren't going to convince anyone. The difference is that I know I am right because I listened to it as it happened. You appear to be monday morning quarterbacking.
I couldn't bring up your first cite - on dial-up and it wouldn't load. Second one didn't show anything attached or any door.
No, that thing on the bottom is not a 'box'.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

I watched it on live TV, dopey. And I don't have to convince "anyone", because you are the only dunderhead here who doesn't know that the thing hanging UNDER the balLoon is a place for small cargo.

That is not anyone's problem but yours.

I don't generally call people trolls, but you are either a troll or mentally damaged. Those are the only optionsd left.
See ya!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 20, 8:35am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

I watched it on live TV too as it happened. And from everything that I heard it was never assumed that the boy was inside the helium filled balloon itself. There was plenty of discussion about a box beneath the balloon, even reports that some people had seen something fall off the balloon and the possibility that was the box seperating. Without knowing the exact contruction of the balloon and given the stories being told by the parents and the other children, I don't think it would have been reasonable for anyone to conclude the story was bogus because the boy couldn't be breathing helium.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:50:52 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I think the Balloon Boy, and the Prius threads have really run their course. They are just going in circles and are repeating themselves. We need to find something new on which everyone can take intractable (even when contradicted by photographic proof) positions.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

I completely disagree :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.