stay away from jiffy lube

Sounds like you're DONE! Where's the grammar police when you need them?

Funny MTcycle, the correct grammar for your sentence is "Where're" not "Where's" the grammar police when you need them?
Sucks when you open your pie hole and end up looking dumber than the guy you're trying to put down huh? Just say'n' :)

Besides everybody knew what he was meaning so why would you try to ridicule him?
 
Funny MTcycle, the correct grammar for your sentence is "Where're" not "Where's" the grammar police when you need them?
Sucks when you open your pie hole and end up looking dumber than the guy you're trying to put down huh? Just say'n' :)

Besides everybody knew what he was meaning so why would you try to ridicule him?

I believe my attempt at humor was recognized by the original poster for whom my post was directed. Sorry you took it to be an actual English lesson. The quote below is an English lesson for you! The poster I directed this towards uses his fluent writing ability to comment regularly on many subjects as is his right. He also uses his immense knowledge to regularly correct people's posts. An example would be yesterday when he attempted to correct a quote from a surgeon on anatomy. Yet he seems to regularly use the grammar styling of "Larry the Cable Guy" when he's being cordial. Sure we can understand him, but why not poke fun at him when we get a chance? He would do it to me in a second if he thought I deserved it. Besides, one persons 'ridicule' is another persons First Amendment Rights. I believe the framers intended this as pointed out in The Federalist Papers.

If we can say "what's" and "where's" for "what is" and "where is," I suppose we can say "what're" and "where're" for "what are" and "where are." However, there's less need for the plural contractions, since the singular ones actually do contract two syllables into one, whereas the plural ones still have two syllables each--it's just that the second isn't so distinctly articulated. But I've certainly heard many people say things like "What're you doing?" and "Where're the kids?" My opinion is that they're acceptable in informal speech but not in writing, unless you're writing dialogue or quoting what someone actually said.
Source(s):
Retired English professor
 
If we can say "what's" and "where's" for "what is" and "where is," I suppose we can say "what're" and "where're" for "what are" and "where are." However, there's less need for the plural contractions, since the singular ones actually do contract two syllables into one, whereas the plural ones still have two syllables each--it's just that the second isn't so distinctly articulated. But I've certainly heard many people say things like "What're you doing?" and "Where're the kids?" My opinion is that they're acceptable in informal speech but not in writing, unless you're writing dialogue or quoting what someone actually said.
Source(s):
Retired English professor

.

The English language rules have changed and they are doing so, so fast that our language and the definitions of our language is being changed ............ For the worst me thinks that is...........texting has changed words, and the lack of grammar has changed the meaning of sentences........... Here is and example of a political point scoring exercise from our, (Australian), Prime minister against her opposite number that has led to the definition of a word to be broadened by the Macquarie dictionary.

Sadly the rules don't apply anymore, I was reading about the lack of structure/grammer in sentences by the youth today could be leading to social and society based problems down the track because the brain is not being used in an organized manner with the meaning of sentences......or something to that effect
 
would You just like to kick him in the nuts for that one:wtf:

sounds like the idiot kicked himself in the nuts !:D

one of the most common scams in the UK until a recent law change was replacing brake rotors that had worn too thin and were outside manufacturers recommended tolerance.

MOT testing stations and garages would routinely fail a cars brake rotors and customers had little choice but to accept a huge unforseen bill for replacement even though the brakes passed every braking efficiency test applied.

How many people are going to go into the bay and under their car and measure their cars brake rotors with a Micrometer and refer to a workshop manual to check if the garage is right!?

A recent change in the law now states that provided the brakes pass the braking efficiency test, the rotors cannot be failed, even if they are thin or rusty . Naturally if the rotors are cracked , loose or pieces missing they can fail
 
Funny MTcycle, the correct grammar for your sentence is "Where're" not "Where's" the grammar police when you need them?
Sucks when you open your pie hole and end up looking dumber than the guy you're trying to put down huh? Just say'n' :)

Besides everybody knew what he was meaning so why would you try to ridicule him?

Grammar in the US must be different to the UK ?:confused:

I was taught that when abbreviating two words such as 'where is' , the missing letter/s is replaced with the appostrophie thus 'where's not 'where're'

Wher're does not exist in the English Dictionary:laugh:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/spellcheck/english/where%27re?showCookiePolicy=true
 
sounds like the idiot kicked himself in the nuts !:D

one of the most common scams in the UK until a recent law change was replacing brake rotors that had worn too thin and were outside manufacturers recommended tolerance.

MOT testing stations and garages would routinely fail a cars brake rotors and customers had little choice but to accept a huge unforseen bill for replacement even though the brakes passed every braking efficiency test applied.

How many people are going to go into the bay and under their car and measure their cars brake rotors with a Micrometer and refer to a workshop manual to check if the garage is right!?

A recent change in the law now states that provided the brakes pass the braking efficiency test, the rotors cannot be failed, even if they are thin or rusty . Naturally if the rotors are cracked , loose or pieces missing they can fail

Over here in the Colonies it's the thickness spec cast into the rotor. Thanks to the flood of personal injury attorneys over here, if we get a car with rotors that are too thin a braking efficiency test means nothing, if a car leaves with rotors we surfaced to below minimum spec and there's a crash, well we are screwed.

Company policy: if the rotors are below minimum and the owner declines, we put the car back together exactly as it came in (even if the brakes are worn to the metal backing), put the rotor measurements on the repair order, note that repairs were declined and don't charge them a dime.
 
Back
Top