Old Movies

Red wrote:

tac wrote:If only Dickens wasn't sucjh crap to begin with . . . a good effort at making something half decent out of a stunningly crap novel

Dickens is all right.
Some old movies I like are some of Hitchcock's thrillers including Rear Window, Rebecca and Vertigo.

I'm, also partial to The Third Man and A Touch of Evil.

Don't you mean "alright"? Surely no one is "all right"?

It is pretty labourious isn't it? Guess they didn't have the competition back then that Today's writers have. Mind you Matthew O'Rielly and Clive Cussler both made a fortune.

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:If only Dickens wasn't sucjh crap to begin with . . . a good effort at making something half decent out of a stunningly crap novel

Dickens is all right.
Some old movies I like are some of Hitchcock's thrillers including Rear Window, Rebecca and Vertigo.

I'm, also partial to The Third Man and A Touch of Evil.

Don't you mean "alright"? Surely no one is "all right"?

The technically correct spelling is all right.

I'm always trying to dissuade people from writing alright.

The following are some of the most commonly misspelled words in English. For many of the words listed below, the common misspelled form of the word is in parentheses.
Spelling Tips

• a lot (mistakenly written as alot)
  
• all right (mistakenly written as alright)
  
• convenient
  
• definitely (mistakenly written as definately)
  
• dessert (as in the sweet stuff, not the geographical term; mistakenly written as desert)
  Tip: Remember that dessert has two s's because it tastes so good that we want more of it.
  
• forty (mistakenly written as fourty)
  
• its (for showing possession; mistakenly written as it's, the contraction for it is)
  
• lose (as in "unable to find"; mistakenly written as loose)
  
• receive (mistakenly written as recieve)
  
• restaurant (mistakenly written as restuarant, restraunt, and countless other ways)
  
• separate (mistakenly written as seperate)
  
• truly (mistakenly written as truely)
  
• you're (contraction for you are; mistakenly written as your, which is for showing possession)
  
• weird (mistakenly written as wierd)
  

Bradman wrote:It is pretty labourious isn't it? Guess they didn't have the competition back then that Today's writers have. Mind you Matthew O'Rielly and Clive Cussler both made a fortune.

Gone off Cussler since he started using ghost writers

Red wrote:

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:If only Dickens wasn't sucjh crap to begin with . . . a good effort at making something half decent out of a stunningly crap novel

Dickens is all right.
Some old movies I like are some of Hitchcock's thrillers including Rear Window, Rebecca and Vertigo.

I'm, also partial to The Third Man and A Touch of Evil.

Don't you mean "alright"? Surely no one is "all right"?

The technically correct spelling is all right.

I'm always trying to dissuade people from writing alright.

The following are some of the most commonly misspelled words in English. For many of the words listed below, the common misspelled form of the word is in parentheses.
Spelling Tips

• a lot (mistakenly written as alot)
  
• all right (mistakenly written as alright)
  
• convenient
  
• definitely (mistakenly written as definately)
  
• dessert (as in the sweet stuff, not the geographical term; mistakenly written as desert)
  Tip: Remember that dessert has two s's because it tastes so good that we want more of it.
  
• forty (mistakenly written as fourty)
  
• its (for showing possession; mistakenly written as it's, the contraction for it is)
  
• lose (as in "unable to find"; mistakenly written as loose)
  
• receive (mistakenly written as recieve)
  
• restaurant (mistakenly written as restuarant, restraunt, and countless other ways)
  
• separate (mistakenly written as seperate)
  
• truly (mistakenly written as truely)
  
• you're (contraction for you are; mistakenly written as your, which is for showing possession)
  
• weird (mistakenly written as wierd)
  

Sorry, red, but there was a time (coincidental with Dickens) when what you say would be "all right" . . . however, laguage has progressed a little since then. As for the rest of your examples . . . they are simply errors: not the same thing at all . . .

The movie's not old but the star is. Watched Gran Torino this arvo. While the Vietnamese actors were a little wooden, old Clint Eastwood (just gone 79!!) has still got it.

Pretty good movie. He reminded me of my father!!

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:If only Dickens wasn't sucjh crap to begin with . . . a good effort at making something half decent out of a stunningly crap novel

Dickens is all right.
Some old movies I like are some of Hitchcock's thrillers including Rear Window, Rebecca and Vertigo.

I'm, also partial to The Third Man and A Touch of Evil.

Don't you mean "alright"? Surely no one is "all right"?

The technically correct spelling is all right.

I'm always trying to dissuade people from writing alright.

The following are some of the most commonly misspelled words in English. For many of the words listed below, the common misspelled form of the word is in parentheses.
Spelling Tips

• a lot (mistakenly written as alot)
  
• all right (mistakenly written as alright)
  
• convenient
  
• definitely (mistakenly written as definately)
  
• dessert (as in the sweet stuff, not the geographical term; mistakenly written as desert)
  Tip: Remember that dessert has two s's because it tastes so good that we want more of it.
  
• forty (mistakenly written as fourty)
  
• its (for showing possession; mistakenly written as it's, the contraction for it is)
  
• lose (as in "unable to find"; mistakenly written as loose)
  
• receive (mistakenly written as recieve)
  
• restaurant (mistakenly written as restuarant, restraunt, and countless other ways)
  
• separate (mistakenly written as seperate)
  
• truly (mistakenly written as truely)
  
• you're (contraction for you are; mistakenly written as your, which is for showing possession)
  
• weird (mistakenly written as wierd)
  

Sorry, red, but there was a time (coincidental with Dickens) when what you say would be "all right" . . . however, laguage has progressed a little since then. As for the rest of your examples . . . they are simply errors: not the same thing at all . . .

Tac the language evolves but there are still technically correct ways of spelling, though ignorance is distorting usage. I posted that list because you corrected my use of all right as if it was incorrect. Check usage books if you don't believe me.

Furthermore from a grammarian:
“All Right” and “Alright”
We’ve now come to the third pair of words. At the top of the show I told you that one of the words isn’t a real word. Is it “all right” as two words or “alright” as one word? Well, as grammarian Bill Walsh puts it in his book Lapsing Into a Comma, “We word nerds have known since second grade that alright is not all right” (4). He was talking about “alright” as one word. It's not OK.
Another style guide (5) agrees, saying that “alright” (one word) is a misspelling of “all right” (two words), which means “adequate,” “permissible,” or “satisfactory.” So you might hear the two-word phrase in sentences such as these: “His singing was just all right” or “Is it all right if I wait outside?”
It seems pretty simple: go ahead and use “all right” as two words, and stay away from “alright” as one word. But the esteemed Brian Garner (6) notes that “alright” as one word “may be gaining a shadowy acceptance in British English.”
The many other grammar sources I checked, including a large dictionary, reject “alright” as one word. Regular listeners of this show know that language is always in flux, so perhaps “alright” as one word is gaining a small footing.

Red . . . usage books are out of date by the time they come off the presses . . . but you stick to them if they help you feel secure.

I guess you still prefer "all ready" to "already" and "all ways" to "always" . . .

Finally, I'm just saddened that you didn't even get the point of my initial post . . . . maybe you would be better off as an hermaphrodite . . .

Lordy, Red had shat someone else off.

tac wrote:Red . . . usage books are out of date by the time they come off the presses . . . but you stick to them if they help you feel secure.

I guess you still prefer "all ready" to "already" and "all ways" to "always" . . .

Finally, I'm just saddened that you didn't even get the point of my initial post . . . . maybe you would be better off as an hermaphrodite . . .

The point is irrelevant, you accused me of a spelling error.

As I mentioned earlier, usage will change mainly though ignorance. Many words are in the English language because they have distinct differences from other words are uniquely useful. Because there are so many ignorant people who misuse them, usage has to accommodate egregious abuse of the language.

Red wrote:

tac wrote:Red . . . usage books are out of date by the time they come off the presses . . . but you stick to them if they help you feel secure.

I guess you still prefer "all ready" to "already" and "all ways" to "always" . . .

Finally, I'm just saddened that you didn't even get the point of my initial post . . . . maybe you would be better off as an hermaphrodite . . .

The point is irrelevant, you accused me of a spelling error.

As I mentioned earlier, usage will change mainly though ignorance. Many words are in the English language because they have distinct differences from other words are uniquely useful. Because there are so many ignorant people who misuse them, usage has to accommodate egregious abuse of the language.

A little bit egregious?

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:It is pretty labourious isn't it? Guess they didn't have the competition back then that Today's writers have. Mind you Matthew O'Rielly and Clive Cussler both made a fortune.

Gone off Cussler since he started using ghost writers

Gone off Cussler ever since he dumped Dirk Pitt.

Red wrote:

tac wrote:Red . . . usage books are out of date by the time they come off the presses . . . but you stick to them if they help you feel secure.

I guess you still prefer "all ready" to "already" and "all ways" to "always" . . .

Finally, I'm just saddened that you didn't even get the point of my initial post . . . . maybe you would be better off as an hermaphrodite . . .

The point is irrelevant, you accused me of a spelling error.

As I mentioned earlier, usage will change mainly though ignorance. Many words are in the English language because they have distinct differences from other words are uniquely useful. Because there are so many ignorant people who misuse them, usage has to accommodate egregious abuse of the language.

That is just so much silliness, Red . . .

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:Red . . . usage books are out of date by the time they come off the presses . . . but you stick to them if they help you feel secure.

I guess you still prefer "all ready" to "already" and "all ways" to "always" . . .

Finally, I'm just saddened that you didn't even get the point of my initial post . . . . maybe you would be better off as an hermaphrodite . . .

The point is irrelevant, you accused me of a spelling error.

As I mentioned earlier, usage will change mainly though ignorance. Many words are in the English language because they have distinct differences from other words are uniquely useful. Because there are so many ignorant people who misuse them, usage has to accommodate egregious abuse of the language.

That is just so much silliness, Red . . .

It's actually the truth. How else do you think language evolves, apart from the odd neologism?

Bradman wrote:

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:It is pretty labourious isn't it? Guess they didn't have the competition back then that Today's writers have. Mind you Matthew O'Rielly and Clive Cussler both made a fortune.

Gone off Cussler since he started using ghost writers

Gone off Cussler ever since he dumped Dirk Pitt.

Think he's still doing Pitt.

Red wrote:It's actually the truth. How else do you think language evolves, apart from the odd neologism?

And that is a bad thing?

Geez, it'd be nice if just one thread that Red gets involved in didn't get taken OT on the topic of pedantry.

skully wrote:Geez, it'd be nice if just one thread that Red gets involved in didn't get taken OT on the topic of pedantry.

Obviously Graeme was a bad speller.

Red wrote:

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:Red . . . usage books are out of date by the time they come off the presses . . . but you stick to them if they help you feel secure.

I guess you still prefer "all ready" to "already" and "all ways" to "always" . . .

Finally, I'm just saddened that you didn't even get the point of my initial post . . . . maybe you would be better off as an hermaphrodite . . .

The point is irrelevant, you accused me of a spelling error.

As I mentioned earlier, usage will change mainly though ignorance. Many words are in the English language because they have distinct differences from other words are uniquely useful. Because there are so many ignorant people who misuse them, usage has to accommodate egregious abuse of the language.

That is just so much silliness, Red . . .

It's actually the truth. How else do you think language evolves, apart from the odd neologism?

It's only partly true . . and that makes its silly, because you leave out so many other influences that cannot be safely characterised as abuse or misuse . . .

Neologism? It sounds like what it means and should be screamed out by Marilyn Chambers after being drilled by RJ.

And yeah I tink he's still doing Pitt. He's still a crap writer but he knows how to sell books.

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:Red . . . usage books are out of date by the time they come off the presses . . . but you stick to them if they help you feel secure.

I guess you still prefer "all ready" to "already" and "all ways" to "always" . . .

Finally, I'm just saddened that you didn't even get the point of my initial post . . . . maybe you would be better off as an hermaphrodite . . .

The point is irrelevant, you accused me of a spelling error.

As I mentioned earlier, usage will change mainly though ignorance. Many words are in the English language because they have distinct differences from other words are uniquely useful. Because there are so many ignorant people who misuse them, usage has to accommodate egregious abuse of the language.

That is just so much silliness, Red . . .

It's actually the truth. How else do you think language evolves, apart from the odd neologism?

It's only partly true . . and that makes its silly, because you leave out so many other influences that cannot be safely characterised as abuse or misuse . . .

I agree to some extent with the incorporation of other languages being another way in which the language evolves, especially in multicultural societies. But the example you cited, which led down the pedantry path, is clearly a case of misusage leading to a more popular kind of usage. If you don't believe me check the etymology dictionaries.

Red,

You might know. Rachel answered this for me a while ago, but foolish me cannot remember the answer

In what context would you use 1980s and 1980's?

Thanks

Paul Keating wrote:Red,

You might know. Rachel answered this for me a while ago, but foolish me cannot remember the answer

In what context would you use 1980s and 1980's?

Thanks

Red advocates 1980s

Red wrote:

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:Red . . . usage books are out of date by the time they come off the presses . . . but you stick to them if they help you feel secure.

I guess you still prefer "all ready" to "already" and "all ways" to "always" . . .

Finally, I'm just saddened that you didn't even get the point of my initial post . . . . maybe you would be better off as an hermaphrodite . . .

The point is irrelevant, you accused me of a spelling error.

As I mentioned earlier, usage will change mainly though ignorance. Many words are in the English language because they have distinct differences from other words are uniquely useful. Because there are so many ignorant people who misuse them, usage has to accommodate egregious abuse of the language.

That is just so much silliness, Red . . .

It's actually the truth. How else do you think language evolves, apart from the odd neologism?

It's only partly true . . and that makes its silly, because you leave out so many other influences that cannot be safely characterised as abuse or misuse . . .

I agree to some extent with the incorporation of other languages being another way in which the language evolves, especially in multicultural societies. But the example you cited, which led down the pedantry path, is clearly a case of misusage leading to a more popular kind of usage. If you don't believe me check the etymology dictionaries.

Your need to be "all right" is not terribly endearing, Red . . . . but that's alright . . .