Nitpick: Portable Document Format Format

[Castellan]

Worst. Rant. Ever.

Why people are worried about this while millions of people are out there misusing "its" and "it's", I'll never know.

Or "there" and "their"...
Or "your" and "you're"...
Or "would of" instead of "would have"...
Or any number of others that drive me bonkers...

 

[Castellan]

Oh, and Piratecat, I can forgive "it's" and "its". For every other word I can think of in English which doesn't end in an s, adding 's is the way to make it possessive. When Hasbro releases the next edition of English I hope they correct this problem by requiring contractions to use a different symbol where the omitted letters should go, thus freeing up "it's" for the possessive use. Of course doing so will require everyone to replace all of their books, because this tiny change will make the new English rules completely incompatible with the old ones.

Actually, "whose" and "who's" follow the same rules as "its" and "it's." So, it's not an isolated thing.

 

[OregonGM]

I do technical support for my company's "Small Business Division" software. "SBD" as an acronym is bad enough, but all our materials say "SBD Division".

I work for the Small Business Division Division. In fact, I have a PDF formatted document which says so.

 

[Asmor]

I hope they correct this problem by requiring contractions to use a different symbol where the omitted letters should go, thus freeing up "it's" for the possessive use. Of course doing so will require everyone to replace all of their books, because this tiny change will make the new English rules completely incompatible with the old ones.

You don't need to replace all your books if you don't want to. You can just download the conversion document and the English 3.5 SRD. As long as the people you're communicating with can understand you, it doesn't matter which version of English you're using.

Actually, the ELSC has already established a standard for the next version of English and it is not backwards compatible.

(incidentally, that's a shameless plug to an article I wrote. Fair warning.)

 

[cybertalus]

Okay "Fed Ex Express" may or may not technically be redundant, but it still sounds dumb to me. I know there are sentence constructions in English where it is correct to use the same word twice in a row, but the little editor who sits inside my brain (and is the reason it takes me half an hour or more to write even a short post) gets very upset when he sees them, and even more upset when I try to use them.

You don't need to replace all your books if you don't want to. You can just download the conversion document and the English 3.5 SRD. As long as the people you're communicating with can understand you, it doesn't matter which version of English you're using.

Sure, it sounds simple, but when you're trying to read with someone and they've got 3.5 English and you've got 3.0 English it just doesn't work out quite so well. The rules don't work quite the same, things in the "same" book are on different pages, and the conversion manual doesn't quite explain the changes adequately.

Worse, with all the focus on changes to the rules of English, people seem to lose sight of the fact that the point of English is to communicate, preferrably in fun and creative ways, not to argue about the rules of English all the time. Well, the point of English is also to become the dominant language so that everyone who communicates has certainly heard of English, and most have spoken it at least a few times, but that aspect isn't generally discussed much except by people who prefer languages other than English.

 

[Asmor]

I know there are sentence constructions in English where it is correct to use the same word twice in a row

How about using the same word three times in a row?

For example, I've often heard that that that doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

How about using the same word three times in a row?

For example, I've often heard that that that doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

...ow

 

[FireLance]

Okay "Fed Ex Express" may or may not technically be redundant, but it still sounds dumb to me. I know there are sentence constructions in English where it is correct to use the same word twice in a row, but the little editor who sits inside my brain (and is the reason it takes me half an hour or more to write even a short post) gets very upset when he sees them, and even more upset when I try to use them.

I know what you mean. I've got a little editor in my brain as well, and will often go to great lengths to avoid using the same word twice in a row.

 

[FireLance]

How about using the same word three times in a row?

For example, I've often heard that that that doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

The most technically correct number of repetitions of a single word I've heard is as follows:

John, while Mary had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better impression on the judges.

EDIT: Except, of course, for songs which go "La la la la la la la la la la la la...", or the dwarven variant, "Gold gold gold gold gold gold gold gold gold gold gold gold..." (Terry Pratchett reference).

 

[Darrin Drader]

Why people are worried about this while millions of people are out there misusing "its" and "it's", I'll never know.

Dude, I still screw that one up all the time. And I majored in English in college!

Of course I know your comment was sarcasm, a mild form of trolling, for which you should be ashamed since you're a moderator here. Tsk! Tsk!