Jump to content

Featured Replies

I'm broadly content to let spelling and grammar slide on a footy chat room - with the odd exception - just as long as we all agree that pretentious Dermott tries to sound intelligent by misusing big words, whose meanings completely elude him.

 

Coincidentally I just went to the AFL’s Season Guide 2022 to see what our list changes were at the end of 2021; in the “ins” column is the rookie elevation of our #23, James Jordan. Seriously, from the AFL’s official bible….?

 

On 7/25/2022 at 11:03 AM, dazzledavey36 said:

Where's Deeluded when you need him..

BarnDee and Enyaw gave him a run for his money for the title of 'Braveheart' on this forum.

On a different and totally unrelated note, I've noticed I get referred to as 'Flaubert' when someone is upset with me on this forum. If we are more cordial in our relations, it's either CBF or Col. 

Edited by Colin B. Flaubert

 

I could care less about spelling and grammar.

There are many grammatical ways to walk into a bar.

  • An Oxford comma walks into a bar, where it spends the evening watching the television, getting drunk, and smoking cigars.
  • A dangling participle walks into a bar. Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.
  • A bar was walked into by the passive voice.
  • An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.
  • Two quotation marks walk into a “bar.”
  • A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intensive purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.
  • Hyperbole totally rips into this insane bar and absolutely destroys everything.
  • A question mark walks into a bar?
  • A non sequitur walks into a bar. In a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.
  • Papyrus and Comic Sans walk into a bar. The bartender says, “Get out — we don’t serve your type.”
  • A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.
  • A comma splice walks into a bar, it has a drink and then leaves.
  • Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar. They sit. They converse. They depart.
  • A synonym strolls into a tavern.
  • At the end of the day, a cliché walks into a bar — fresh as a daisy, cute as a button, and sharp as a tack.
  • A run-on sentence walks into a bar it starts flirting. With a cute little sentence fragment.
  • Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.
  • A figure of speech literally walks into a bar and ends up getting figuratively hammered.
  • An allusion walks into a bar, despite the fact that alcohol is its Achilles heel.
  • The subjunctive would have walked into a bar, had it only known.
  • A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned by a man with a glass eye named Ralph.
  • The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.
  • A dyslexic walks into a bra.
  • A verb walks into a bar, sees a beautiful noun, and suggests they conjugate. The noun declines.
  • A simile walks into a bar, as parched as a desert.
  • A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to forget.
  • A hyphenated word and a non-hyphenated word walk into a bar and the bartender nearly chokes on the irony.

Bring back Brock Maclean, Liam Jarrah, Brent Maloney and Ricky Pettard

31 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

There are many grammatical ways to walk into a bar.

  • An Oxford comma walks into a bar, where it spends the evening watching the television, getting drunk, and smoking cigars.
  • A dangling participle walks into a bar. Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.
  • A bar was walked into by the passive voice.
  • An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.
  • Two quotation marks walk into a “bar.”
  • A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intensive purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.
  • Hyperbole totally rips into this insane bar and absolutely destroys everything.
  • A question mark walks into a bar?
  • A non sequitur walks into a bar. In a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.
  • Papyrus and Comic Sans walk into a bar. The bartender says, “Get out — we don’t serve your type.”
  • A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.
  • A comma splice walks into a bar, it has a drink and then leaves.
  • Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar. They sit. They converse. They depart.
  • A synonym strolls into a tavern.
  • At the end of the day, a cliché walks into a bar — fresh as a daisy, cute as a button, and sharp as a tack.
  • A run-on sentence walks into a bar it starts flirting. With a cute little sentence fragment.
  • Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.
  • A figure of speech literally walks into a bar and ends up getting figuratively hammered.
  • An allusion walks into a bar, despite the fact that alcohol is its Achilles heel.
  • The subjunctive would have walked into a bar, had it only known.
  • A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned by a man with a glass eye named Ralph.
  • The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.
  • A dyslexic walks into a bra.
  • A verb walks into a bar, sees a beautiful noun, and suggests they conjugate. The noun declines.
  • A simile walks into a bar, as parched as a desert.
  • A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to forget.
  • A hyphenated word and a non-hyphenated word walk into a bar and the bartender nearly chokes on the irony.

Excellent work. But what happened to the tautomer? Did he walk into the bar for a drink to quench his thirst?

 

1 hour ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I think the word “ definitely” loses all its impact when spelt “ definately”.

Have others noticed this?

Defs!


1 hour ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I think the word “ definitely” loses all its impact when spelt “ definately”.

Have others noticed this?

Or when they say defiantly.

All forms of possession require the use of an apostrophe, whether singular or plural.

However, if the word ends in the letter  "s", whether singular or plural, just use the apostrophe.

Only living things can have possession.

For example, the legs of a table ... the table's legs WRONG! Not a living thing.

For another example, leaves on a tree ... the tree's leaves CORRECT! It is a living thing.

It is easier with people. For example: John's footy is muddy. (Good). Amos' hot meat pie. (Good) Amos's hot meat pie. (Wrong)

Collective nouns trick many people: (Good) The Firemen's Ball.

Collective nouns, when titular (part of an official title) always end with an apostrophe (The Officers' Mess bar).

Just yesterday, I walked into the greengrocer's shop and spied a sign that read: Orange's $4 per 3kg bag. Not one person had complained before, he added. I still purchased the bag of oranges - my favourite fruit - and he set about improving his sign.

 

 

 

Thred of the year.

 

25 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Only living things can have possession.

For example, the legs of a table ... the table's legs WRONG! Not a living thing.

Sorry, can't go with you on this. Non-living objects can have possession and 'the table's legs' is perfectly correct. It may not jibe with someone's style guide, but that's just a preference.


8 minutes ago, Demonised said:

Sorry, can't go with you on this. Non-living objects can have possession and 'the table's legs' is perfectly correct. It may not jibe with someone's style guide, but that's just a preference.

Common idiom and usage allows this; oral usage retains the meaning quite clearly. Possibly six of one and half a dozen of the other on this call. Outside of such preferences, there are those to whom possession could be sacrosanct and these people will strongly disagree. Their preferences would most likely be to state from the example: '..the legs of the table...' highlighting in one fell swoop the emphasis of the subject and the whence of the subject matter and perhaps its purpose. 

 

Why do so many people spell the word quiet 'quite'? It happens so often in text messages. Is it laziness? Idioticness? They are two completely different words!

Eg. "Yeah I noticed things have been quite between the two of you" 

"You were awfully quite in that last quarter!" 

54 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

All forms of possession require the use of an apostrophe, whether singular or plural.

However, if the word ends in the letter  "s", whether singular or plural, just use the apostrophe.

Only living things can have possession.

For example, the legs of a table ... the table's legs WRONG! Not a living thing.

For another example, leaves on a tree ... the tree's leaves CORRECT! It is a living thing.

It is easier with people. For example: John's footy is muddy. (Good). Amos' hot meat pie. (Good) Amos's hot meat pie. (Wrong)

Collective nouns trick many people: (Good) The Firemen's Ball.

Collective nouns, when titular (part of an official title) always end with an apostrophe (The Officers' Mess bar).

Just yesterday, I walked into the greengrocer's shop and spied a sign that read: Orange's $4 per 3kg bag. Not one person had complained before, he added. I still purchased the bag of oranges - my favourite fruit - and he set about improving his sign.

 

 

 

In today’s world… wait a minute… is today a living thing???? 😝

Edited by WalkingCivilWar
So busy being a smartarze I made a typo 😬

 
On 7/23/2022 at 6:34 PM, Demonstone said:

I would also advise that posters don't use a big word when a singularly unloquacious and diminutive linguistic expression will satisfactorily accomplish the contemporary necessity.

At this stage, I should put my hand up and confess that I sometimes use big words that I don't know the meaning of in an attempt to sound more photosynthesis.

Does my memory serve me correctly, that the first line is a quote of Sir Humphrey from "Yes Minister"?

If yes, I applaud you sir/madam/insert gender neutral word here.

If not I applaud you with a quote from Mr. Edmund Blackadder" "you have my contrafibularities". 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • PREVIEW: Carlton

    Good evening, Demon fans and welcome back to the Demonland Podcast ... it’s time to discuss this week’s game against the Blues. Will the Demons celebrate Clayton Oliver’s 200th game with a victory? We have a number of callers waiting on line … Leopold Bloom: Carlton and Melbourne are both out of finals contention with six wins and eleven losses, and are undoubtedly the two most underwhelming and disappointing teams of 2025. Both had high expectations at the start of participating and advancing deep into the finals, but instead, they have consistently underperformed and disappointed themselves and their supporters throughout the year. However, I am inclined to give the Demons the benefit of the doubt, as they have made some progress in addressing their issues after a disastrous start. In contrast, the Blues are struggling across the board and do not appear to be making any notable improvements. They are regressing, and a significant loss is looming on Saturday night. Max Gawn in the ruck will be huge and the Demon midfield have a point to prove after lowering their colours in so many close calls.

    • 0 replies
  • REPORT: North Melbourne

    I suppose that I should apologise for the title of this piece, but the temptation to go with it was far too great. The memory of how North Melbourne tore Melbourne apart at the seams earlier in the season and the way in which it set the scene for the club’s demise so early in the piece has been weighing heavily upon all of us. This game was a must-win from the club’s perspective, and the team’s response was overwhelming. The 36 point win over Alastair Clarkson’s Kangaroos at the MCG on Sunday was indeed — roovenge of the highest order!

    • 4 replies
  • CASEY: Werribee

    The Casey Demons remain in contention for a VFL finals berth following a comprehensive 76-point victory over the Werribee Tigers at Whitten Oval last night. The caveat to the performance is that the once mighty Tigers have been raided of many key players and are now a shadow of the premiership-winning team from last season. The team suffered a blow before the game when veteran Tom McDonald was withdrawn for senior duty to cover for Steven May who is ill.  However, after conceding the first goal of the game, Casey was dominant from ten minutes in until the very end and despite some early errors and inaccuracy, they managed to warm to the task of dismantling the Tigers with precision, particularly after half time when the nominally home side provided them with minimal resistance.

    • 0 replies
  • PREGAME: Carlton

    The Demons return to the MCG as the the visiting team on Saturday night to take on the Blues who are under siege after 4 straight losses. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 222 replies
  • PODCAST: North Melbourne

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 14th July @ 8:00pm. Join Binman & I as we dissect the Dees glorious win over the Kangaroos at the MCG.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

    • 29 replies
  • POSTGAME: North Melbourne

    The Demons are finally back at the MCG and finally back on the winners list as they continually chipped away at a spirited Kangaroos side eventually breaking their backs and opening the floodgates to run out winners by 6 goals.

    • 253 replies