how to write good

[µT6]

[Lone Stranger]

Rule 11.  Never verb nouns.

[Just17]

Great find!    

[Rudge]

Rule 11.  Never verb nouns.

Very clever.

[Linux-Blue]

A common issue "there"

It's over there. correct
It's there turn to watch TV. incorrect
If there going outside, they should put on a coat. incorrect.

Typically, they have the word "there", forgetting they're, and their.

Strangely I saw someone actually use "their". but still incorrect "if their over there, grab it."

[JALU]

Shouldn't it be  "How to write well" 

[pags]

Shouldn't it be  "How to write well" 

If it was well written, then perhaps...but it wasn't writ good!

[jimwilk]

Rule 11.  Never verb nouns.

Rule 11 (a). Never noun verbs

Example: A reviewer describes a book as, ".. a good read."

I think "read" is a verb but here it has been turned into a noun by the placement of "a".

Grrr. 


Jim

[Rudge]

A common issue "there"

It's over there. correct
It's there turn to watch TV. incorrect
If there going outside, they should put on a coat. incorrect.

Typically, they have the word "there", forgetting they're, and their.

Strangely I saw someone actually use "their". but still incorrect "if their over there, grab it."

This can be cleared up.

If the preferred word can be broken down into "They Are" the word is "they're".

If you are referring to someone that might call themselves "I" then the word is "their".

"There" is simply a place, or a condition that anything could qualify as.

"There" are simply to many confusing words in the English dictionary that fall under the category of "Homonyms".

 

[Old-Polack]

A common issue "there"

It's over there. correct
It's there turn to watch TV. incorrect
If there going outside, they should put on a coat. incorrect.

Typically, they have the word "there", forgetting they're, and their.

Strangely I saw someone actually use "their". but still incorrect "if their over there, grab it."

This can be cleared up.

If the preferred word can be broken down into "They Are" the word is "they're".

If you are referring to someone that might call themselves "I" then the word is "their".

"There" is simply a place, or a condition that anything could qualify as.

"There" are simply to many confusing words in the English dictionary that fall under the category of "Homonyms".

 

Ain't that like grits? 

[Bald Brick]

"There" are simply to many confusing words in the English dictionary that fall under the category of "Homonyms".

Don't you mean homophones?  

Actually you do:

Homonyms share both spelling and pronunciation but have different meanings; homophones are pronounced more or less identically but may be spelt differently; homographs are are words that share spelling but not necessarily pronunciation.

So "their", "there" and "they're" are homophones but, being heterographical, not homonyms.

With "court" (as in "court of law" or "royal court", or meaning "courtyard", or even "woo") we have an example of etymologically related words that have remained homographs, homophones and homonyms.

The words "pole" and "Pole" may be considered homographs, but they are actually capitonyms: it's the capitalization that changes the meaning. They are still homophones though. The same goes for "turkey" and "Turkey".

On the other hand, the words "finish" and "Finnish" are homophones but not capitonyms if you look closely. But "finish" can have several distinct meanings so it's really a group of homonyms. And so on.

 




 

[gandy]

Something that annoys me is the incorrect usage of to and too. There are three words that sound the same but mean entirely different things, to, too and two. Learn to use them please!

 What's the difference between to, too, and two? It's not too difficult to use them, once you take the time to learn what they mean - and do some practicing too.
 

To

To has two functions. First, as a preposition, in which case it always precedes a noun.

    I'm going to the store

    He went to Italy

    This belongs to David

Secondly, to indicates an infinitive when it precedes a verb.

    I need to study

    We want to help

    He's going to eat


Too

Too also has two uses. First, as a synonym for "also":

    Can I go too?

    He went to France too

    I think that's Paul's book too

Secondly, too means excessively when it precedes an adjective or adverb.

    I'm too tired

    He's walking too quickly

    I ate too much
     

Two

Two is a number.

    One, two, three...

    I have two cars

    She ate two pieces of pie

 
The Bottom Line

The confusion between to, too, and two occurs because the three words are pronounced identically.

One: If you're able to replace the word with "also" or "excessively/too much," use too. Two: If the word is a number, use two. Otherwise, you'll want to use to.

Another one is when people use loose when they should use lose.

This confusion can easily be avoided if you pronounce the word intended aloud. If it has a voiced Z sound, then it’s “lose.” If it has a hissy S sound, then it’s “loose.” Here are examples of correct usage: “He tends to lose his keys.” “She lets her dog run loose.” Note that when “lose” turns into “losing” it loses its “E.”

OK, one more. No one is two words. It's very annoying when people type noone.

[Bald Brick]

OK, one more. No one is two words. It's very annoying when people type noone.

Aren't you a bit too strict?

   

• Noone is formed in parallel to the formation of nobody, anyone, and everyone, but it is often considered incorrect because of the doubled vowels creating a temptation to read and pronounce it as "noon" (/nuːn/).
• American users (COCA) prefer the spelling no one to either noone or no-one by more than 500 to 1.
• UK users (BNC) prefer no-one to noone 50 to 1 and no one to noone 12 to 1.

500 to 1 implies that you are right. But 12 to 1? As a foreigner I could live with that.

Don't forget that the spelling "noöne" was once recommended by many linguists. It seems to have died out entirely.

[Just17]

"There" are simply to many confusing words in the English dictionary that fall under the category of "Homonyms".

Don't you mean homophones? 

Actually you do:

Homonyms share both spelling and pronunciation but have different meanings; homophones are pronounced more or less identically but may be spelt differently; homographs are are words that share spelling but not necessarily pronunciation.

So "their", "there" and "they're" are homophones but, being heterographical, not homonyms.

With "court" (as in "court of law" or "royal court", or meaning "courtyard", or even "woo") we have an example of etymologically related words that have remained homographs, homophones and homonyms.

The words "pole" and "Pole" may be considered homographs, but they are actually capitonyms: it's the capitalization that changes the meaning. They are still homophones though. The same goes for "turkey" and "Turkey".

On the other hand, the words "finish" and "Finnish" are homophones but not capitonyms if you look closely. But "finish" can have several distinct meanings so it's really a group of homonyms. And so on.

 
 

I think I just became a  homo-phobe   

Don't forget that the spelling "noöne" was once recommended by many linguists. It seems to have died out entirely.

Ah, noone pays that any attention anymore, and no one really cares any more. People have more to worry about than no-one!

[gandy]

Aren't you a bit too strict?

I listed my objections in order of annoyance.

Using noone instead of no one is a minor annoyance to me.

I also understand that, for many of the members here, US English is not their first language.

I also don't like it when the US is called America when, technically, America is the continent that includes Canada, USA and Mexico. That's a minor annoyance too but a different subject.