Posted on 11/21/2014 4:10:21 AM PST by lbryce
How many of those under fifty, including those with undergraduate or even advanced degrees, know the difference between their, there and they’re? I think it is rather low, I have actually seen all three used within one or two sentences here on FR and all three used INCORRECTLY. One response to something I posted on the subject said all three should be spelled the same since they are all pronounced the same! Apart from the fact that one is a contraction with an apostrophe that sounds rather strange to me since I have always pronounced them differently. Having been raised dirt poor on a little farm in South Carolina and actually having walked behind a mule growing up it is rather amazing to see supposedly educated people making errors which would have kept me in the fifth grade until I had a full beard.
Here is his email and my response to the spelling problems that seem to plague "their" and "they're".
Reply Next Previous Delete Re: Could Russia's New Nuclear Weapons Win World War III? From OldPossum | 11/21/2014 4:21:30 AM PST replied “them since their only tactical”
Did this appear in the original? “Their” instead of “they’re.” In Forbes?
If so, how amazingly sloppy.
Regards,
OldPossum
Re: Re: Could Russia's New Nuclear Weapons Win World War III? To lbryce | 11/21/2014 4:41:51 AM PST sent
You may be an OldPossum but your eyesight is young and new. Excellent catch. Of course the text is verbatim as it appears in the article. I merely copy and paste. To copy the article word by word manually is overwhelmingly much too difficult with no upside.
I checked the original article and it does appear using the homonym version of “they’re”, appearing as “their”.
But while the author should know better and is definitely to blame deserving all the admonishment you can muster, you can almost blame new technology almost as much.
These errors of the written word containing the homonym version, but of course is in the form in which it is spelled incorrectly under any circumstances is the result of modern computer spell-checkers, used absolutely blindly by authors, journalists, writers of all stripes who after completing the article will enable the spell checker software to read each word to determine any spelling errors and once they get the “no spelling errors found” will publish the article with compete confidence of its spelling integrity.
The problem is that ‘spell checkers’ still do not have the capacity to distinguish between homonyms in sentence and while they are 100% infallible when it comes to making sure the spelling is correct throughout the text, the same thing can not be said for its word usage.
And so, since ‘their’ is indeed spelled correctly, it will respond with ‘no spelling errors found’. Still, writers who rely on spell checkers ought to be even more cautious today than ever knowing the gaping grammar loophole they are prone to.
So, despite the explanation, at the end of the day you are still nevertheless absolutely correct. ‘Amazingly sloppy’ applies no matter what.
Thanks very much for your comments.
All my Very Best.
Leon Bryce
Yes. Instead of maintenance and upkeep of our strategic forces, we've squandered untold riches on Iraq, who should've been paying us war reparations, not to mention the money spent on illegal immigrants and my favorite - muzzie outreach.
It all depends on your definition of "win".
If "win" is defined as "I and my ruling elite are alive, and nobody is now in a position to challenge our rule over what is left of the world", then perhaps some individuals DO consider a nuclear exchange "winnable", regardless of how many millions are dead among the peasantry.
It's less like reading a Tom Clancy novel than it is like watching a formalistic B-rated horror movie for the second or third time.
“...know the difference between their, there and they’re?”
It’s not there fault...it’s that darn autocorekt.
At least the Russia is Russian. Unlike America.
Why does Russia even need to bother? What billions upon billions of dollars couldn’t do, a monkey in the white hut won Ww3 for Russia without firing a shot.
Correct. The Brookings and Rand corporation think tanks war gamed the use of tactical nukes. Note, one corporation is liberal and the other conservative. Both think tanks came to the same conclusion, the use of tactical nukes always lead to total thermonuclear war with both sides launching their big nukes.
Tactical nukes are good if your enemy does not have nukes.
“Why does Russia even need to bother? “
Exactly. A few more years of this traitor’s actions, and Russia could park landing craft on the East coast with little or no resistance.
“It’s not there fault...it’s that darn autocorekt.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It’s still they’re fault, their depending too much on there autocowrecker or ortawronger or whatever.
“It’s still they’re fault...”
I know, I know...and then you throw in bifocals overlooking fat fingers “swyping” on a 2.5 x 4.5 inch screen displaying characters in #4 font, not to mention an approaching naptime...life is tough!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.