Spelling and Grammar

euronorris

Fly_Baby wrote: »

The OP didn't ask for patronizing comments either - yet everybody was happy to offer them without actually proving what was wrong with the original post.

This isn't complaining then?

Apologies if that is not how you meant it to come across, but from the above, you seem quite annoyed that others didn't offer constructive criticism or solutions. And, you know, if you are annoyed at them for that, then you should also be annoyed with the OP.

rupee99

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Oh no, I was just being curious as a non-native speaker - which I think I pointed out more than once.

Yet, you chose to get all defensive for some reason and now start calling me names - nice of you.

If you produce where I called you a name I will apologise.

As for the subject matter, this is a forum concerning Employment matters, I have great experience of law and practice in that subject area. There are many people on here that I will share that knowledge with, even you, and would not, for one moment criticise anyone for their spelling or grammar unless it was fundamental to the understanding of their comment.

The OP claims to have attended, IIRC, a grammar school but displayed a lack of basic understanding of English, in fact so much that it was a parody (or "wind-up" if you prefer the colloquial ). Such a person does not genuinely require help, or if they do this is the wrong place to both seek and find it. Hence my comment that you are being obtuse.

Absinthe_Fairy

Quasar wrote: »

As I said that is being very pedantic ihmo, and apart from the spelling of "their", I wouldn't really have commented on the post at all.

Confusing 'their' and 'there' is quite a major error considering the nature of the OP's post, though. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't bother picking anyone up on it, and I'm sure a lot of other posters wouldn't either.

gazelle8760

dacouch wrote: »

Using "and" twice in one sentance...

Could do better.

Now then, The Gazelle is never one to pick hairs, however, should that not read sentence, and not sentance?

rupee99

Quasar wrote: »

.............

All very true, but a quick scan of the subsequent posts by the OP will reveal a sharp decline to where the resemblance to English is only passing.

Fly_Baby

euronorris wrote: »

This isn't complaining then?

Apologies if that is not how you meant it to come across, but from the above, you seem quite annoyed that others didn't offer constructive criticism or solutions. And, you know, if you are annoyed at them for that, then you should also be annoyed with the OP.

This was my first post in this thread:

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Everyone here is commenting on the OP's command of English - could anyone kindly re-write the original post to make it perfect in terms of spelling and grammar? Just curious.

Thanks in advance!

No annoyance or intention of complaining or offending anyone - just asking for correct version out of academic curiousity.

True to your word, I do have a problem with people who make assertions and refuse to substantiate their point. They wouldn't get away with things like that in a court room, you know.

Fly_Baby

rupee99 wrote: »

If you produce where I called you a name I will apologise.

As for the subject matter, this is a forum concerning Employment matters, I have great experience of law and practice in that subject area. There are many people on here that I will share that knowledge with, even you, and would not, for one moment criticise anyone for their spelling or grammar unless it was fundamental to the understanding of their comment.

The OP claims to have attended, IIRC, a grammar school but displayed a lack of basic understanding of English, in fact so much that it was a parody (or "wind-up" if you prefer the colloquial ). Such a person does not genuinely require help, or if they do this is the wrong place to both seek and find it. Hence my comment that you are being obtuse.

I didn't ask to 'help' OP with his/her English - I asked to advise ME on what would be the correct way of saying the original post. And at the point when I was asking that, I hadn't done or written anything in this thread which would make you come to any assumtions about me.

Fly_Baby

rupee99 wrote: »

As for the subject matter, this is a forum concerning Employment matters, I have great experience of law and practice in that subject area. There are many people on here that I will share that knowledge with, even you, and would not, for one moment criticise anyone for their spelling or grammar unless it was fundamental to the understanding of their comment.

And what's with 'even you'? How am I different from other anonymous posters?

euronorris

Out of interest Fly Baby, if you don't mind me asking, what is your native language?

As usual, your understanding of English as a second language, is better than some native English speakers. I find this to be true for a lot of non native English speakers.

That's alarming isn't it. And yet, I am now used to it.

rupee99

Fly_Baby wrote: »

And what's with 'even you'? How am I different from other anonymous posters?

Because you are being obtuse.

Hiding behind a claim of being a non-native Englsh speaker does not hide that you know fully what that means.