Ilasir Maroa

In writing, using a letter as an image is fine. For numbers, the general rule of thumb is that when describing an actual "7" on something, you can use "7", but when talking about an amount of something, you spell it out.

__________________
My hopeful book:
Crap! Haven't posted it anywhere yet, darn!
"Only tyranny cloaks itself in shadows. The light of justice can not be hidden."

www.theoddvillepress.com

The Backward OX

The real question is why is there a pier in a marsh?

I know why there was a pier in a keeler but that's another story.

__________________
Originally Posted by Wildcard
I view with distaste the excretions polluting this site, suffering when I read another by-product of the boredom of one with access to a computer and the internet. As I read I feel I am being defecated on, and cling to an idea that one day I may find solace in the words of one who takes pride in their work.

Sam Winchester

I defy you to show me any novel in the world where there isn't a comma before a name in speech.

__________________

smilinghelps

Sorry Ox, Sam is right...


An absolute phrase is always treated as a parenthetical element, as is an interjection. An addressed person's name is also always parenthetical. Be sure, however, that the name is that of someone actually being spoken to.

-I'm telling you, Juanita, I couldn't be more surprised.

__________________
"I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day."
E. B. White

The Backward OX

hahahaha.

Two replies in a row that show the total failure of 'words only' as a way to convey meaning. Words without body language, without inflection.

Which in the wider sense says a lot about forums as a way to communicate effectively. It can't be done.

__________________
Originally Posted by Wildcard
I view with distaste the excretions polluting this site, suffering when I read another by-product of the boredom of one with access to a computer and the internet. As I read I feel I am being defecated on, and cling to an idea that one day I may find solace in the words of one who takes pride in their work.

Olly Buckle

Damned if you are doing me Ox! (should there be a comma in that, no, I say it without hesitation.)

Affect, act on or influence
Effect, change caused by some one or some thing

I shall affect it to cause an effect. They both have other meanings as well which adds to the confusion.

__________________
Olly Buckle has started posting on Associated Content

http://www.associatedcontent.com/join.html?refer=323686

The Backward OX

I had to go back and read my original comment to tickle up my grey matter and convince myself you weren’t rambling again.

It’s a bit like that other one where you laughed like a drain over me saying a certain member said I called him a prick it is true and I’m sorry and you haven’t heard the remainder of that little anecdote as I managed to get it trashed by the thought police

commas or no commas.

Erdhexe

I've noticed that the following often get confused:

save vs. safe
they're vs. their vs. there
it's vs. its
life - lives

Claudia

The Backward OX

The word “then” is an adverb used to indicate a particular time in the past or future – now and then; then we had sex; if WF crashes again then I shall join writingforums. org; and so on.

So why do I constantly see here at WF an absolute ground-swell of usage like this:

I would rather die then join that forum; it is bigger then Ben Hur; she runs faster then me ??

I thought this was a writing site. Don’t nobody learn nothing at school no more?

__________________
Originally Posted by Wildcard
I view with distaste the excretions polluting this site, suffering when I read another by-product of the boredom of one with access to a computer and the internet. As I read I feel I am being defecated on, and cling to an idea that one day I may find solace in the words of one who takes pride in their work.

Mike C

What, you mean like double-negatives?

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

papertears

I have never learned how to differentiate when to use who and whom. That year the grammar teacher was a coach who used sports metaphors for everything.

I can't believe they gave me a college degree without knowing this.

__________________

papertears

oh another few that people, including me, botch and i didn't see anyone post yet are:

• than and then:

• than is for comparison: "my grammar is worse than it used to be".

• then is a time, as in "now and then"

• affect and effect EDIT: Olly already covered this one! I blew past it! Thanks Olly!!!

__________________

The Backward OX

Guess you blew past that one too. Four posts up.

__________________
Originally Posted by Wildcard
I view with distaste the excretions polluting this site, suffering when I read another by-product of the boredom of one with access to a computer and the internet. As I read I feel I am being defecated on, and cling to an idea that one day I may find solace in the words of one who takes pride in their work.

The Backward OX

I would have responded off the top of my head that "whom" is simply more formal but thought it safer to check first. This is what I found:

(the second paragraph gets more to the nitty-gritty)

—Usage note The typical usage guide statement about the choice between who and whom says that the choice must be determined by the grammar of the clause within which this pronoun occurs. Who is the appropriate form for the subject of a sentence or clause: Who are you? The voters who elected him have not been disappointed. Whom is the objective form: Whom did you ask? To whom are we obliged for this assistance? This method of selecting the appropriate form is generally characteristic of formal writing and is usually followed in edited prose.

In most speech and writing, however, since who or whom often occurs at the beginning of the sentence or clause, there is a strong tendency to choose who no matter what its function. Even in edited prose, who occurs at least ten times as often as whom, regardless of grammatical function. Only when it directly follows a preposition is whom more likely to occur than who: Mr. Erickson is the man to whom you should address your request.
In natural informal speech, whom is quite rare. Who were you speaking to? is far more likely to occur than the “correct” To whom were you speaking? or Whom were you speaking to? However, the notion that whom is somehow more “correct” or elegant than who leads some speakers to hypercorrect uses of whom: Whom are you? The person whom is in charge has left the office. See also than.

This is misleading. It reads like they didn't know this.

__________________
Originally Posted by Wildcard
I view with distaste the excretions polluting this site, suffering when I read another by-product of the boredom of one with access to a computer and the internet. As I read I feel I am being defecated on, and cling to an idea that one day I may find solace in the words of one who takes pride in their work.

papertears

apologies

__________________