In an attempt to play on the Facebook Scrabble application, I foolishly persuaded myself to believe I might be able to enjoy myself. It seems that whenever I click on the "public games" section" and type in my search criteria, which I leave completely open, there is no match. Either no one wants to play this Scrabulous wannabe (that's right, I said it!), or this is just another of Facebook Scrabble's technical problems. And what's more, Facebook Scrabble makes grammatical errors! When I search for public games, this is the answer I get: "There is no match for your search criterias [sic], try again."
In conclusion, Facebook Scrabulous is not only tehnically difficult, but also grammatically stupid.
July 31, 2008
Scrabulous update
Some more unfortunate news: Rajant and Jayat Agarwalla must have been tired of the lawsuit, so they deleted Scrabulous from Facebook altogether, even outside the U.S. and Canada! The only way to play Scrabulous anymore is through the Web site. Desperate for some Scrabulous action, I logged onto Scrabulous.com last night, hoping I could recapture some of its magic from the Facebook version. I couldn't stand it.
In addition to being timed, Scrabulous must also not have liked my computer and/or browser. Several times, I tried to submit words to no avail. The clock kept ticking, but words I knew existed would not be added to my total. I couldn't even finish one game because of technical difficulties! A couple of the people I talked to had played Scrabulous on Facebook, and they were missing it as much as I was. Until Scrabble either brings Scrabulous back or makes a working model of the game on Facebook, there are going to be some very angry customers.
In addition to being timed, Scrabulous must also not have liked my computer and/or browser. Several times, I tried to submit words to no avail. The clock kept ticking, but words I knew existed would not be added to my total. I couldn't even finish one game because of technical difficulties! A couple of the people I talked to had played Scrabulous on Facebook, and they were missing it as much as I was. Until Scrabble either brings Scrabulous back or makes a working model of the game on Facebook, there are going to be some very angry customers.
July 30, 2008
Fare thee well...for now, at least
Imagine my surprise when I logged onto Facebook yesterday, clicked on my favorite application, and saw, "Scrabulous is disabled for U.S. and Canadian users until further notice." I had no knowledge of the fights between the owners of Scrabulous and Hasbro (which owns the rights to Scrabble within the U.S. and Canada), let alone that Hasbro had filed a lawsuit. I also didn't know how many people really cared about the Scrabble imitator. I've read several articles from many different news outlets and blogs worldwide. It is a comfort to know that I'm not alone in my misery, because, after all, misery does love company. But times like these make me want to shout, "Can't we all just get along?"
Yes, the Scrabulous Web site is functioning just fine. (But it's not the same as playing it on Facebook!) And Facebook's Scrabulous application still works everywhere else in the world. Mattel owns the rights to Scrabble outside the two countries, and it is not involved in the legal action. I say, "Good for you, Mattel! Maybe I'll buy some Barbies!" That doesn't make me feel much better, though. As of two days ago, I was engaging in a game of Scrabulous with an acquaintance in England, and now he can't even finish his game!
In only a couple of days, groups dedicated to saving our beloved Facebook application have grown intensely in popularity, including Save Scrabulous (though there are many groups with this name), Give us Scrabulous or Give us Death! [sic], Please, God, I Have So Little: Don't Take Scrabulous, Too and even If Hasbro Kills Scrabulous, I will die! There are also petitions, many of which launched when the troubles began early this year. In an effort to "fill the void," Scrabble has launched a beta Facebook application that is pretty and flashy, but extremely slow and technically riddled with problems. I've tried to start a game, but I get a "Sorry, we aren't working right now" message almost every time I try to use the application. Its "official launch" is scheduled for mid-August, but let's hope Hasbro has come to an agreement with the Agarwallas before then.
*EDIT* I'd like to correct the statement about Mattel not taking part in the Scrabulous lawsuits. Apparently, the company has made a lawsuit in India. No Barbies for me!
Yes, the Scrabulous Web site is functioning just fine. (But it's not the same as playing it on Facebook!) And Facebook's Scrabulous application still works everywhere else in the world. Mattel owns the rights to Scrabble outside the two countries, and it is not involved in the legal action. I say, "Good for you, Mattel! Maybe I'll buy some Barbies!" That doesn't make me feel much better, though. As of two days ago, I was engaging in a game of Scrabulous with an acquaintance in England, and now he can't even finish his game!
In only a couple of days, groups dedicated to saving our beloved Facebook application have grown intensely in popularity, including Save Scrabulous (though there are many groups with this name), Give us Scrabulous or Give us Death! [sic], Please, God, I Have So Little: Don't Take Scrabulous, Too and even If Hasbro Kills Scrabulous, I will die! There are also petitions, many of which launched when the troubles began early this year. In an effort to "fill the void," Scrabble has launched a beta Facebook application that is pretty and flashy, but extremely slow and technically riddled with problems. I've tried to start a game, but I get a "Sorry, we aren't working right now" message almost every time I try to use the application. Its "official launch" is scheduled for mid-August, but let's hope Hasbro has come to an agreement with the Agarwallas before then.
*EDIT* I'd like to correct the statement about Mattel not taking part in the Scrabulous lawsuits. Apparently, the company has made a lawsuit in India. No Barbies for me!
July 28, 2008
Step Brothers (sic)
Like Lynne Truss and many other members of the grammar police, the movie "Two Weeks Notice" created an uproar with its missing apostrophe. And I suspect that the widespread release of the Will Ferrell/John C. Reilly comedy "Step Brothers" will soon create an uproar of its own. How sad is it that a major production company can't be error-free in a movie title? I haven't seen the movie, but I am aware of its plot. (Read more on Wikipedia.) I am unaware of how this horrible injustice could have been anything other than a mistake. But I wonder how everyone involved in this movie's production could stand to look so ignorant. At any rate, I am sure Ms. Truss is losing some sleep over this one.
Touching tribute to Tim
Maybe it's because I'm finally an adult, but rarely until the past year or so have I seriously been touched by the death of someone I didn't know. I am unable to empathize with grief to which I do not feel connected. That being said, the fact that I was really depressed over the death of Tim Russert was a surprise for me.
I suppose it has to do with his link to the beginning of a my life as an aspiring journalist. I first "met" Tim Russert in August 2005 during "Meet the Press." My first journalism instructor had everyone in class watch the Sunday TV news show to learn about current events; we were also required to write reports about what we had seen. "Meet the Press" was (and still is) one of the only TV news shows I respect because of its hard-hitting and non-sensational nature, and I hope that the next permanent host does as good of a job as Russert did.
Unlike a lot of TV "journalists," Russert wasn't afraid to ask the hard questions; in fact, he was the opposite. He enjoyed making ill-prepared politicians squirm when they weren't quite sure how to answer. He never backed away when someone in the hotseat didn't give a direct asnwer; he pushed until he got a straight explanation or made it known that he wasn't being fooled.
I'm not going to say I followed Russert diligently, watching the show every week and catching every TV appearance he made. But even though I didn't idolize Russert, I really admired everything he did for journalism and for me. Because of him, I know that not all TV "journalists" are hacks, and I know that it's possible for them to be respected for the right reasons.
I am mentioning this more than a month after his death because of a newspaper article I happened to read. I tend to be suspicious of people's motives when it comes to martyring others and profiting off of loss (e.g., Sept. 11). But I really think the efforts to keep Tim Russert's memory alive have been pure and clean, and I am amazed that America treated his death with so much respect. However, I wonder if it will ever happen again. For how long will our country have the ability to care for a famous journalist the way we care for other celebrities? Will this country ever know another Tim Russert?
I suppose it has to do with his link to the beginning of a my life as an aspiring journalist. I first "met" Tim Russert in August 2005 during "Meet the Press." My first journalism instructor had everyone in class watch the Sunday TV news show to learn about current events; we were also required to write reports about what we had seen. "Meet the Press" was (and still is) one of the only TV news shows I respect because of its hard-hitting and non-sensational nature, and I hope that the next permanent host does as good of a job as Russert did.
Unlike a lot of TV "journalists," Russert wasn't afraid to ask the hard questions; in fact, he was the opposite. He enjoyed making ill-prepared politicians squirm when they weren't quite sure how to answer. He never backed away when someone in the hotseat didn't give a direct asnwer; he pushed until he got a straight explanation or made it known that he wasn't being fooled.
I'm not going to say I followed Russert diligently, watching the show every week and catching every TV appearance he made. But even though I didn't idolize Russert, I really admired everything he did for journalism and for me. Because of him, I know that not all TV "journalists" are hacks, and I know that it's possible for them to be respected for the right reasons.
I am mentioning this more than a month after his death because of a newspaper article I happened to read. I tend to be suspicious of people's motives when it comes to martyring others and profiting off of loss (e.g., Sept. 11). But I really think the efforts to keep Tim Russert's memory alive have been pure and clean, and I am amazed that America treated his death with so much respect. However, I wonder if it will ever happen again. For how long will our country have the ability to care for a famous journalist the way we care for other celebrities? Will this country ever know another Tim Russert?
July 22, 2008
Collection
I've begun collecting photos for my "grammatical tragedies of downtown St. Petersburg" entry(/ies?). So far, most of the signage I've seen has been relatively error-free. I expected a lot worse than what I've gotten, to tell you the truth. Most of the errors so far haven't been too glaring (no hyphens in compounds adjectives, for example).
Yes, I know, nobody's perfect. Even I have grappled with grammatical issues. But if I am going to spend money on signs that are going to be visible to a lot of people, I'd like to make sure they are correct.
Yes, I know, nobody's perfect. Even I have grappled with grammatical issues. But if I am going to spend money on signs that are going to be visible to a lot of people, I'd like to make sure they are correct.
July 21, 2008
Optimism is difficult
One of my favorite journalism Web site is Poynter.org. In addition to having some great webmasters, the site has a lot of good resources and interesting columns. This morning, Romenesko tipped me off to an interesting L.A. Times article about U.S. news editors keeping their optimism, despite the decreasing size of the newsroom.
You know what? I'm happy that at least someone is optimistic here, because I sure am not. It's hard to be optimistic when, after eight months of job-searching, I have yet to find any serious work in the field, including freelance gigs. I often feel like people have spit in the face of my master's degree, like it means nothing. Few people I know from my school's journalism program have gotten jobs in the field, and no one I know from the grad program has gotten a job (not including those who already have jobs in the field).
It's also hard to be optimistic when certain news Web sites can't go two stories without making typos and stylistic errors. And as good as the networks may or may not be, their Web sites sure would benefit from having good copy editors. So, even though most U.S. editors may be optimistic, it is a little more difficult for me to feel the same way. And maybe the editors are optimistic because they are the ones in power, and they are the ones who have to tell everyone it'll be all right.
Sorry to sound like a sour grape, and here's to hoping that changes sometime soon. I know plenty of people who feel the same way I do, though. I really hope there's a light at the end of the tunnel.
You know what? I'm happy that at least someone is optimistic here, because I sure am not. It's hard to be optimistic when, after eight months of job-searching, I have yet to find any serious work in the field, including freelance gigs. I often feel like people have spit in the face of my master's degree, like it means nothing. Few people I know from my school's journalism program have gotten jobs in the field, and no one I know from the grad program has gotten a job (not including those who already have jobs in the field).
It's also hard to be optimistic when certain news Web sites can't go two stories without making typos and stylistic errors. And as good as the networks may or may not be, their Web sites sure would benefit from having good copy editors. So, even though most U.S. editors may be optimistic, it is a little more difficult for me to feel the same way. And maybe the editors are optimistic because they are the ones in power, and they are the ones who have to tell everyone it'll be all right.
Sorry to sound like a sour grape, and here's to hoping that changes sometime soon. I know plenty of people who feel the same way I do, though. I really hope there's a light at the end of the tunnel.
July 20, 2008
Down Home With the "Neely's"
A few pros about digital cable with DVR:
*No more snowy pictures and meter-length antennae
*Ability to record more than one program at a time
*Exposure to a variety of different media outlets
A few about digital cable with DVR:
*It costs money
*It wastes time one might otherwise use productively
*It encourages laziness
Since I got digital cable with DVR about a month ago, I've been wasting more time than ever lounging in front of the tube, where there is a multitude of media from which to choose. Yesterday, I was engaging in one of my TV marathons (in which I engage more often than I care to admit) when I turned to the Food Network, which never fails to pique my interest. I began watching "Down Home With the Neelys," a cooking show hosted by a husband-and-wife pair who cook barbecue and other southern-style fare, and who also own a chain of barbecue joints. Yesterday's menu of choice was spaghetti with turkey meatballs (which looked tasty despite my vegetarian lifestyle), grilled Casear salad, garlic bread and a liqueur-infused dessert.
Imagine my surprised when the show returned from commercial to begin a segment with, "The Neely's Spaghetti With Turkey Meatballs" (or some such title). THE NEELY'S? Didn't the video guy for that show realize it was breaking the rules of Possessives 101? For one, the show's title is "Down Home With the Neelys," not "Down Home With Neely."
Just to spell it out clearly, plural possessives should end with apostrophes. In my AP-style world, this means that I do not add a second "s" following the apostrophe. Hence, whoever titled that segment *should have* said, "The Neelys' Spaghetti With Turkey Meatballs."
I would like to hope that this was a typo rather than a grammatical mistake, but one never can tell. This isn't the first time I've seen bad grammar on TV-segment titles.
*No more snowy pictures and meter-length antennae
*Ability to record more than one program at a time
*Exposure to a variety of different media outlets
A few about digital cable with DVR:
*It costs money
*It wastes time one might otherwise use productively
*It encourages laziness
Since I got digital cable with DVR about a month ago, I've been wasting more time than ever lounging in front of the tube, where there is a multitude of media from which to choose. Yesterday, I was engaging in one of my TV marathons (in which I engage more often than I care to admit) when I turned to the Food Network, which never fails to pique my interest. I began watching "Down Home With the Neelys," a cooking show hosted by a husband-and-wife pair who cook barbecue and other southern-style fare, and who also own a chain of barbecue joints. Yesterday's menu of choice was spaghetti with turkey meatballs (which looked tasty despite my vegetarian lifestyle), grilled Casear salad, garlic bread and a liqueur-infused dessert.
Imagine my surprised when the show returned from commercial to begin a segment with, "The Neely's Spaghetti With Turkey Meatballs" (or some such title). THE NEELY'S? Didn't the video guy for that show realize it was breaking the rules of Possessives 101? For one, the show's title is "Down Home With the Neelys," not "Down Home With Neely."
Just to spell it out clearly, plural possessives should end with apostrophes. In my AP-style world, this means that I do not add a second "s" following the apostrophe. Hence, whoever titled that segment *should have* said, "The Neelys' Spaghetti With Turkey Meatballs."
I would like to hope that this was a typo rather than a grammatical mistake, but one never can tell. This isn't the first time I've seen bad grammar on TV-segment titles.
July 14, 2008
How I saved the day
Yesterday, I went to Starbucks to engage in my usual weekend relaxation session. When I got to the counter, I noticed something was amiss with an advertising board: The name of the new beverage Starbucks is advertising was misspelled! (It was one of those hand-written chalk boards in which the employees advertise the latest craze in Starbucks beverages.)
The Vivanno, which is a smoothie-type beverage, is set to make its national premier in a few days. Rather than letting this grievous spelling mistake stare me in the face for eternity, I alerted one of the baristas to this awful error. I was thanked profusely, and I was left fulfilled, happy that I was able to make the world a better place. (Unfortunately, when I went there this morning, I noticed that one of the bullet points on the same chalkboard also included a misspelled insertion of "Vivanno." I alerted the same barista from yesterday, and I again wondered what those people would have done without me.)
In both cases, the author of that particular chalk board spelled "Vivanno" with one "n" rather than with two "n's." Do you want to know the worst part about it? (Of course you do.) The person who wrote up the advertisement was the store's assistant manager. Wha???
This assistant manager wasn't the only one to make such a mistake, however. When I Googled the word "Vivanno," one of my results yielded a Reuters blog entry in which another store employee had misspelled the name on a similar-looking chalk board! Apparently, the person who inserted the photo of that ad board did not notice the misspelled name, either.
What does this say about the state of language in our near future? I really don't want to infer that these circumstances are commonplace, but I think there is a problem when someone in a position of authority in a company misspells one of the company's trademarked products. I also wonder why someone who works at a newspaper (whether he is a blogger or a designer) would fail to notice the misspelling in the photo, especially if the blog entry itself had no errors.
Let's hope that this issue is resolved as the Vivanno is brought to the counters Starbucks stores throughout the country. And here's to hoping for some free samples.
The Vivanno, which is a smoothie-type beverage, is set to make its national premier in a few days. Rather than letting this grievous spelling mistake stare me in the face for eternity, I alerted one of the baristas to this awful error. I was thanked profusely, and I was left fulfilled, happy that I was able to make the world a better place. (Unfortunately, when I went there this morning, I noticed that one of the bullet points on the same chalkboard also included a misspelled insertion of "Vivanno." I alerted the same barista from yesterday, and I again wondered what those people would have done without me.)
In both cases, the author of that particular chalk board spelled "Vivanno" with one "n" rather than with two "n's." Do you want to know the worst part about it? (Of course you do.) The person who wrote up the advertisement was the store's assistant manager. Wha???
This assistant manager wasn't the only one to make such a mistake, however. When I Googled the word "Vivanno," one of my results yielded a Reuters blog entry in which another store employee had misspelled the name on a similar-looking chalk board! Apparently, the person who inserted the photo of that ad board did not notice the misspelled name, either.
What does this say about the state of language in our near future? I really don't want to infer that these circumstances are commonplace, but I think there is a problem when someone in a position of authority in a company misspells one of the company's trademarked products. I also wonder why someone who works at a newspaper (whether he is a blogger or a designer) would fail to notice the misspelling in the photo, especially if the blog entry itself had no errors.
Let's hope that this issue is resolved as the Vivanno is brought to the counters Starbucks stores throughout the country. And here's to hoping for some free samples.
July 08, 2008
Deja vu...again?
Deja vu is when a person experiences something new, but it feels like it has already happened. According to Dictionary.com, it is defined as "the illusion of having previously experienced something actually being encountered for the first time." Merriam-Webster defines it as "a: the illusion of remembering scenes and events when experienced for the first time b: a feeling that one has seen or heard something before." "Deja vu" is also defined as something that is uncomfortably or overly familiar.
You might not think this bears repeating, as the experience of deja vu is extremely common. In fact, I doubt I know anyone who hasn't experienced deja vu. But a refresher course on deja vu is necessary; people commonly misuse the term as a plain-old, easy, happy familiarity. It is fairly usual for someone to refer to deja vu when, for example, he meets someone at the same restaurant a second time.
Because I am notoriously better at explaining by example than by explaining the rules, I will give you a couple of anecdotes to clarify myself.
Correct use of deja vu:
I was really hungry, so I decided to run down to a nearby restaurant to grab some food. Though I'd never been to Casa de Pan, I had an eerie sensation of familiarity when I walked in the door. The hostess who greeted me had a face that I could have sworn I'd seen in the same place, and the restaurant's color schemes triggered a seemingly-forgotten memory of when I last ate here. However, I'd never been to Texas and I knew this couldn't have happened. It was just a case of deja vu!
Incorrect use of deja vu:
At the thought of meeting Josh for our third date, my heart was aflutter. We'd met randomly a few weeks ago while we were in line at Starbucks, and we struck up a conversation over the fact that we'd both brought our own cups and what a shame it was that more people didn't do the same. We decided it would be fun to meet up at Starbucks again, then maybe catch a movie. I arrived at Starbucks, and I saw that he was already inside. When I greeted him, I was so nervous that I stupidly blurted out, "Hey, it must be deja vu!"
You might not think this bears repeating, as the experience of deja vu is extremely common. In fact, I doubt I know anyone who hasn't experienced deja vu. But a refresher course on deja vu is necessary; people commonly misuse the term as a plain-old, easy, happy familiarity. It is fairly usual for someone to refer to deja vu when, for example, he meets someone at the same restaurant a second time.
Because I am notoriously better at explaining by example than by explaining the rules, I will give you a couple of anecdotes to clarify myself.
Correct use of deja vu:
I was really hungry, so I decided to run down to a nearby restaurant to grab some food. Though I'd never been to Casa de Pan, I had an eerie sensation of familiarity when I walked in the door. The hostess who greeted me had a face that I could have sworn I'd seen in the same place, and the restaurant's color schemes triggered a seemingly-forgotten memory of when I last ate here. However, I'd never been to Texas and I knew this couldn't have happened. It was just a case of deja vu!
Incorrect use of deja vu:
At the thought of meeting Josh for our third date, my heart was aflutter. We'd met randomly a few weeks ago while we were in line at Starbucks, and we struck up a conversation over the fact that we'd both brought our own cups and what a shame it was that more people didn't do the same. We decided it would be fun to meet up at Starbucks again, then maybe catch a movie. I arrived at Starbucks, and I saw that he was already inside. When I greeted him, I was so nervous that I stupidly blurted out, "Hey, it must be deja vu!"
Moral of the story
As you can see, the misuse of such a popular term is clearly a serious matter. But that is why I am here; even though it isn't possible, I still strive to achieve perfection in this crazy world of lingual and grammatical ineptness.
One more thing...was the movie "Deja Vu" really correctly using that term? I tend to think not.
July 06, 2008
While/though...
Though I know I am practically a genius when it comes my knowledge of spelling, grammar and the like, I must admit that I do not know everything. But when I do learn something new about the English language, I like to share it with others so they don't make the mistake of using a word the wrong way. I don't know if everyone has this experience, but when I learn the correct way to use a word, I tend to noticed it being used incorrectly all over the place. One of my biggest pet peeves revolves around the word "sherbet," though I'll save that for a dessert-themed entry (yum!).
I've always been a lot better at knowing what is correct/incorrect than knowing how to explain why. I tend not to know all the correct terms, but I know what and when words should be used. So if my explanations are ever a bit clumsy, I apologize. That's one reason I am not a teacher. ;)
Lately, I've been noticing a lot of "whiles" where there should be "thoughs," even in otherwise well-written books. (I am currently reading "The Art of Racing in the Rain" by Garth Stein, an inspiring and adorable tale narrated by a dog. I would highly recommend it for anyone who is interested in reading something thoughtful, yet not too difficult on the brain.) To explain the difference between "though" and "while," here is the entry I used in the style guide I wrote for The Crow's Nest, USF St. Petersburg's student newspaper (I used the words "although" and "though" interchangeably because they are pretty much the same word, though I should probably have separated them.):
although, while – “Although” means “even though” or “assuming that.” “While” notes
passage of time.
(Right: Though Melanie couldn’t run a six-minute mile, she still felt like a runner.
Wrong: While Melanie couldn’t run a six-minute mile, she still felt like a runner.)
That isn't really too difficult to follow, is it? Here's an example of how to use "while" in the correct sense:
While Melanie was preparing tomorrow's lunch, she called Sandi to wish her a happy birthday.
The above sentence shows a time frame, whereas "though" often indicates a conflict.
There are many more grammatical instances that are subject to frequent mistakes, such as "that/which," "over/more than" than and "since/because." I most often see "over/more than" used the wrong way; people often use the word "over" when they mean more. "Over" should indicate direction, and "more than" should indicate number. (For example, "Melanie spent more than $5 st Starbucks yesterday" indicates a number.")
Some people might scoff at the attention people pay to such specific rules. Obviously, I am not one of those people. If you don't have a set of standards that at least some people are willing to uphold, language will eventually deteriorate until it's incomprehensible.
I've always been a lot better at knowing what is correct/incorrect than knowing how to explain why. I tend not to know all the correct terms, but I know what and when words should be used. So if my explanations are ever a bit clumsy, I apologize. That's one reason I am not a teacher. ;)
Lately, I've been noticing a lot of "whiles" where there should be "thoughs," even in otherwise well-written books. (I am currently reading "The Art of Racing in the Rain" by Garth Stein, an inspiring and adorable tale narrated by a dog. I would highly recommend it for anyone who is interested in reading something thoughtful, yet not too difficult on the brain.) To explain the difference between "though" and "while," here is the entry I used in the style guide I wrote for The Crow's Nest, USF St. Petersburg's student newspaper (I used the words "although" and "though" interchangeably because they are pretty much the same word, though I should probably have separated them.):
although, while – “Although” means “even though” or “assuming that.” “While” notes
passage of time.
(Right: Though Melanie couldn’t run a six-minute mile, she still felt like a runner.
Wrong: While Melanie couldn’t run a six-minute mile, she still felt like a runner.)
That isn't really too difficult to follow, is it? Here's an example of how to use "while" in the correct sense:
While Melanie was preparing tomorrow's lunch, she called Sandi to wish her a happy birthday.
The above sentence shows a time frame, whereas "though" often indicates a conflict.
There are many more grammatical instances that are subject to frequent mistakes, such as "that/which," "over/more than" than and "since/because." I most often see "over/more than" used the wrong way; people often use the word "over" when they mean more. "Over" should indicate direction, and "more than" should indicate number. (For example, "Melanie spent more than $5 st Starbucks yesterday" indicates a number.")
Some people might scoff at the attention people pay to such specific rules. Obviously, I am not one of those people. If you don't have a set of standards that at least some people are willing to uphold, language will eventually deteriorate until it's incomprehensible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)