I'm sorry folks, but I have to make this point here as it's killing me to see a lot of folks using the term "would of" instead of "would have", or it's contraction "would've". Don't mean to be the grammar nazi, but it's really killing me to read posts like this.

You can now go about ignoring me.

Thank You

Wish you would of not used Folks twice :)

YOLO :)

Emphasis added in all caps.

How about checking your own grammar first?

Come again?

GAME, SET, AND MATCH.

HA!

Lol

Maybe I'm being a little thick, because it's late at night, but what's wrong with "grammar nazi"? Is it just that Nazi ought to be capitalized? Because that's debatable in this context.

I can see that the second sentence is missing a subject, but that doesn't directly pertain to the use of the term "grammar nazi"... so I'm confused.

Help?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

FOOG, IT'S THE IMPROPER USE OF IT'S INSTEAD OF ITS THAT XIN WAS HIGHLIGHTING; I BELIEVE THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE USAGE OF THE TERM "GRAMMAR NAZI" WAS LIKELY JUST TO HIGHLIGHT ITS IRONY. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v30q6VkphbE

P.S. YES, I POSTED THIS REPLY SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF USING ITS IN A SENTENCE. HA!!!!!

Oh, okay. I caught "it's/its", but I assumed both sets of capitalization were showing an error... and I couldn't figure out the second one. That makes sense.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

i hate grammar

I ARE BABOON!!

who cares no body round here be speakin propa gramma neway yo

Hey, English majors! You guys are still morons. It's is a contraction, not possessive.

Here ya go, DOLTS!

a Public Service announcement that doesn't mention anything about sex? oh, wait, you are being a bit anal. nevermind.

I agree with Cerberus of the MI, you DOLTS.

I see nothing wrong with the sentence



Stupid DOLTS.

Yeah Cerb is right.












But who cares?

Why would it be right in the context of that sentence? "its" would make more sense than "it's" since he's clearly pointing out the contraction of "would have" which is "would've".











I smell a conspiracy.

I'd've used an awesome triple contraction, and you shouldn't've posted this without one.

Contraction? My sister had several of those about 7 months ago. Soon afterwards, I was holding this squirming, screaming, defecating spawn of satan as everyone else was all "ooooh" and "aahhhh" and "how cute".


Does anyone else hear banjos?

Sorry but "or it is contraction" doesn't make sense either. :P

I would of think you do nothing care.

You are correct, "It's" is a contraction of "It is". But in the sentence

..."would have", or it's contraction "would've".

it wouldn't have made sense to expand it to

..."would have", or it is contraction "would've".

or

..."would have", or it has contraction "would've".

"Its" would've been the correct word to use.

To be more specific, "its" is used to describe something that is connected to an animal or an inanimate object or noun, so the use of "its" shows the connection between the 2 quoted terms "would have" and "would've".

And "it's" can be a contraction for both "it is" and "it has". Example: Thanks to the nuclear plant meltdown, it's (it has) been a bad season for tourism at Japan.

To be even more specific, "its" is possessive, meaning that "would have" possesses the contraction "would've".

OK, you got me on the improper use of "it's" in this instance. Thank You for pointing it out I will make the appropriate adjustment to correct the error. But otherwise, the use of "would of" is still incorrect.

I <3 Cerbz :-)

Next time. Do not argue with Xin! He's always correct dude.
Even SAM can't beat him with arguments.