|
Pointless English Grammar Argument
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Coup |
nik this was a mint remix of nudawn :p
haha
nik this was a mint remix of nudawn :p "was" - meaning hes just deleted it
lol
lol
meaning it was a track made a long while ago...sounding like nudawn
:rolleyes:
well no
because it still exists
so "is"
would be correct
"was"
meaning paste tense
past ^
:rolleyes:
* coup|awai cough
twat
:p
it will always exist
:P
my point
thank you for proving urself wrong
and it still exists on lukes hd
therefore...not past tense
lol
so if it exists
lukes english was incorrect
no
because it was made
so u did delete it
nearly a year ago
and?
so was
it is not currently being produced
so is not is
the thing in question reguardless when made still exists
"was"
referes to something in the past
even tho it was made then
its still alive today
ur mum doesnt say
"luke was a nice kid"
to ur gran
she says
"luke is a nice kid"
so on that point alone
i win.
no
wot did u get for english gcse ?
prove me wrong
hehe
today
lam
whos right
newcastle lost the football match
newcastle are still not losing the football match
the match is over
teh game finished
the track is not
exactly
ur wrong
the remix is over
no its not
it was finished
u can still play it
a year ago
your point??
my point is u are wrong
the piece has been complete
coup
what did u get for english gcse?
C
i got A*
and?
shut your face now
no
u are wrong
you are blatantly wrong
shall we take this to the forums?
omg you guys stillgoing on about that is/was thing?
yes
whos right
do it
don't give a
lol
ill put it in COR so it blends in with the rest of the crap
lol
End of #ukta buffer Sun Dec 28 23:23:01 2003
Views. |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| i think that both are correct, but you people are the ones who's english |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by paranoik0
i think that both are correct, but you people are the ones who's english |
who're not who's.
Since it is a grammar thread after all :toothless
Depending on context both are correct, but in the current context it appears that (though I cringe to say it) coup is correct in his assertion that the proper use should be "is".
MrS |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| i did have a feeling that sentence was wrong :p |
|
|
| arctic |
| /me laughs at Luke. |
|
|
| MK-S |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
who're not who's.
Since it is a grammar thread after all :toothless
Depending on context both are correct, but in the current context it appears that (though I cringe to say it) coup is correct in his assertion that the proper use should be "is".
MrS |
Surely you cant abbreviate "who are" to "who're" ! :)
I'm following coups line of thought tbh. |
|
|
| Indicative |
Having just completed my English Literature BA degree in the summer gone by I think I may be able to help. Both are correct, assuming I have read the chat log right, as the remix was completed in the past and is being played in the present. Nobody has been silly enough to suggest the future tense at least! Personally, I along with most of the british speaking population would use past tense in the scenario, although both are correct. The use of the football match is quite a good one, with the obvious point that it could be recorded and watched later... However the outcome would still be the same, the loss of the game. It therefore makes me inclined to side with Luke_Terry.
Also abbreviating to who're is not something you would want to do in the Amsterdam red light district in idle conversation! |
|
|
| Nell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Indicative
Also abbreviating to who're is not something you would want to do in the Amsterdam red light district in idle conversation! |
That wouldnt matter with the likes of luke and i. With us both being geordies i can assertively say we could say bloody anything over there and no-one would have a in clue what we were going on about! :) i think the geordie dialect is on the verge of becomming a language in some senses. |
|
|
| Coup |
| quote: | Originally posted by Indicative
Personally, I along with most of the british speaking population would use past tense in the scenario, although both are correct. |
the past tense referes to something thats "been and gone". Like "that was a nice car before we crashed it". as the car is now 'gone'. "that was a cool PC before it broke", as the PC is no longer in existance. reguardless when the track was made, its still in existance today, and still exists like any other track, even one made last night. u dont say "bt - flaming june was a nice track", because its not dead. u say "flaming june is a good track". so as the track is still in existance, it has to be is. not was. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by MK-S
Surely you cant abbreviate "who are" to "who're" ! :)
|
There is nothing technically wrong with it. I would usually say "who are" but I was correcting more his use of the plural/singular forms and wanted to keep the contractions as a matter of consistency.
That being said......I am an American and we have a slightly different set of rules for what is proper word usage.
i.e. When speaking of an ill person the British would say:
"David was in hospital for two weeks."
Whereas, the proper usage in America would be:
"David was in the hospital for two weeks."
MrS |
|
|
| Luke Terry |
| quote: | Originally posted by Coup
u say "flaming june is a good track". so as the track is still in existance, it has to be is. not was. |
you could, but more likely we would say back in the day flaming june was a mint tune. bleh, not that it matters.
and for this i would like to award a big :stongue:
| quote: | | Also abbreviating to who're is not something you would want to do in the Amsterdam red light district in idle conversation! |
|
|
|
| Coup |
| quote: | Originally posted by Luke Terry
you could, but more likely we would say back in the day flaming june was a mint tune. bleh, not that it matters. |
its still a mint tune to this day, that is my argument. flaming june is a mint tune... |
|
|
|
|
