Slashdot Mirror

In English, if someone says "I would that" it means "I wish that' in a more poetic sense.
source

"would of"?

Why do people keep making this same, very basic, mistake?

Uh, no. If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, at least get it right.

He/Him - the original poster is correct.

That/Who - either are acceptable in this context, and it has no relationship to the he/him decision.

http://www.englishforums.com/English/ToRealiseToRealize/zvgdq/post.htm

Realise derives from the French réaliser, which wasn't spelled with a z. It entered the English language in the early 17th century and meant "to bring into existence". If we want to get rid of the changes realise has undergone, realize must be considered incorrect and the meaning 'to understand' is also wrong as realise didn't have that meaning in those early days.

you are confusing a variation in British spelling with the variation between British and American English. The -ize ending is a variant of British English spelling preferred by the Oxford University Press (and I believe until recent years by The Times). Hence it appears as the first choice in the OALD mentioned in an earlier post. The whole issue is summarised in Wikipedia under "Oxford Spelling".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling (for further reading) note Oxford university press English is different to British English.

Slowly, edition by edition, Webster changed the spelling of words, making them "Americanized." He chose s over c in words like defense, he changed the re to er in words like center, and he dropped one of the Ls in traveler. At first he kept the u in words like colour or favour but dropped it in later editions. He also changed "tongue" to "tung," an innovation that never caught on. Scudder 1881, pp, 245-252.

As a consequence of English being exported by the British Empire in most parts of the world British spelling is commonly used. It would be interesting to see which spelling Noah Webster originally used in his first edition.

Gosh, if only there were some sort of knowledgeable repository for information, sorted into easily searched pieces to allow for quickly finding what you want...

You're right - damping is the correct usage in this instance. damping (dam'ping) n. The capacity built into a mechanical or electrical device to prevent excessive correction and the resulting instability or oscillatory conditions. dampen (dam'p?n) v., -ened, -ening, -ens. v.tr. 1. To make damp. To deaden, restrain, or depress: “trade moves . . . aimed at dampening protectionist pressures in Congress” (Christian Science Monitor). 2. To soundproof. v.intr. 3. To become damp. damp'ener n. http://www.englishforums.com/English/DampingVersusDampening/lpzh/post.htm

Here's the whole thing.

As someone who has had to help teach my 3 children how to spell, English is a horrible language to have to write. The inconsistencies are simply infuriating, and cause years of unnecessary stress and wasted time.

As a native English speaker, I have to say my greatest difficulty in learning other languages was gender. There is simply no reason that two objects should have different genders. Why, oh why, would a car (automobile) be one gender, but a car (train) be a different gender in french. They are both an 'it'.

According to this thread that's grammatically way not wrong enough to deserve an intervention from the grammar Gestapo.

wow, way to copy-paste text from:
http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/paragraphs.shtml,
http://www.englishforums.com/English/LongParagraph/cbllz/Post.htm,
and
http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/rappy_mcraperson_lyrics_33024/other_lyrics_63942/fish_sticks_lyrics_633985.html
respectively

Thanks for your interesting post AC. However I could not help noticing that you should have written "the effect of spontaneous radioactive decay" not "affect". Generally speaking, when you affect something, you produce an effect upon it. http://www.englishforums.com/English/AffectEffect/ vdk/Post.htm

I fail to see how this is illegal, per say. I'm a bit confused.

You're confused because the phrase is per se , not "per say".

Yes, you are wrong. "per say" doesn't exist. Do I know more than you about your own language???

Its "per se" and it's latin. See explanation