nothing!

 

here's some more southern schooling on the 'comma'.

I DON'T WANT NO TROUBLE!

I DON'T WANT, NO TROUBLE!

Since you don't actually say "comma", nobody knows if you want trouble or not. This gives you an oppurtunity to hit'em in the back of the head if, you did indeed, want trouble.

 

Do you remember in high school, you do not use a comma whenever you would stop to take a breath (if reading the sentence aloud). Well thats BS I tell's ya!


Use it for conjunctions (and, but, or, so, yet) that join independent clause :

I own a Ford truck, and a Peanut butter cookie.

After an introductory word group :

I was going to tell you, I also own a Ford truck.

We all know this one, items in a series :

I also own a Ford truck, a peanut butter cookie, a boat, and some smoked meat.

Now we have non restricting elements such as "who, which, that" who's meaning is already clear. Sort of like an extra word.

This is George Flinkerstein, who is also the owner of a Ford truck

Transition bridge sentences and parts of sentences (connecting words) such as; Moreover, However, First, Second.

I also own a Ford truck, however due to the rise in gas prices I must sell it.

This is the one I like to use the most they interrupt the flow of the sentence and are called parenthetical expressions for some stupid reason.

I, the matcho side of me, also own a Ford truck.


Well there is more. I remember when I was attending French school we had 5 pages on commas alone

 

There is so much wrong with what you said that I am not going to address it. Minor stuff, but geeze.....are you just guessing at all of this????????

I'm begging now, let this thread die.

 

Damn please tell me. No joke this is what I was taught in school. I also have notes from a commercial English course I took for a job. Well I hope you'll at least tell me so I won't continue to make errors on installation manuals and catalogs.

 

I DON'T WANT NO TROUBLE.

 

LOL It will never die

I AIN'T GOT NO TROUBLE, I AIN'T WANT NO TROUBLE, NO NOTIN' AT ALL I IS SAID YA KNOW?

 

No way man, I'm done.

 

I, also - want little aggravation, nor amputation, so, I'm outta here.

rr

 

I am not the only one who is also having troubles with grammar, so it seems.

or is it

I am not the only one who is having troubles too with grammar, so it seems.

Despite the fact that some members like to stop this thread (now that is annoying ) keep it going.

I have so many questions to ask.

BTW It is good to see you back here,eph1fifty.


And they say Dutch is the most difficult language on earth!!

 

I heard your president speaking about the Marshals in the planes.

He said: There is more of them.

Why isn't this: There are more of them.

Them is plural,isn't it.

 

Please don't make us start defending our President's grammer.

You'll be beating us to death unmercifully.

 

No serious,this question has nothing to do with G.W Bush.

I hear this frequently in interviews on CNN.
In movies.

So, what about it?

 

The statement IS incorrrect. (singular)
The statements ARE incorrect. (plural)
Often, the words chosen by the President ARE incorrect.
The word used by the President in your example IS incorrect.

In the excample: "them" implies plural so, "are" should be used.

Remember, the First Lady is the 'Teacher'.
The President is just a Texan.

 

It seems like, with "too" being a relative word, to "also", that if someone had already said, "Hey, I own an F-150!", then you could say "I own an F-150, too!!", and it would be gramatically correct. If they had not said anything about owning an F-150 previously, then it would be inappropriate to say "too". Just what it seems like to me.