HAVE" - and any other similar combination ("must of", for example).
Bruce.
Bruce.
What's your excuse?
Bruce.
Maybe meant "Born too loose" {;-)
George Adams
"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller
Is is ok to use "that" that way (when referring to people) ?
ie. Instead of "I met a girl the other day who had a . . . "
Just asking.
Elrikk ;o)
Any wordsmith worth his/her salt uses the former method.
Bruce.
Regards, Rudy
> Any wordsmith worth his/her salt uses the former method.
> Bruce.
> > Is is ok to use "that" that way (when referring to people) ?
> > ie. Instead of "I met a girl the other day who had a . . . "
Elrikk
> This one depends on the context.
> Example:
> John is coming to see me is correct as "John's coming to see me." But
Seriously, though, 'should of/have' is, indeed, almost as bad as
'lose/loose'
> Bruce.
> > I know, I should of asked....
> Bruce.
>>Do you work for the OOBI?
--
Gerry Aitken
...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter
6, verse 16
Bruce
--
Gerry Aitken
...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter
6, verse 16
Bruce.
--
Gerry Aitken
...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter
6, verse 16
Yeah, but great if your client is Outlook Express - both for read and write.
ALMOST ??
Grammatical errors look dumb, are dumb - and in relation to spelling errors,
are heinous outrages.
Spelling errors are relatively inocuous.
> > That's another thing that gets on my wick: "should OF" instead of
"should
> > HAVE" - and any other similar combination ("must of", for example).
> > Bruce.
> > > I know, I should of asked....