Tremulous Forum

General => Feedback => Topic started by: bacon665 on May 20, 2009, 05:53:15 pm

Title: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on May 20, 2009, 05:53:15 pm
When humans get killed by a swarm it says
"<player> was hunted down by the swarm"
Which breaks subject/verb agreement and should be changed to "<player> was hunt down by the swarm"
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: your face on May 20, 2009, 06:30:29 pm
Never noticed that before.  Hah.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Archangel on May 20, 2009, 06:56:04 pm
hunted sound better
Title: Re: Grammar issue with spelling
Post by: player1 on May 20, 2009, 08:24:10 pm
a few things

1) ppl who want to be grammar nazis should learn to spell "grammar"

2) no, it does not, u r wrong, it's perfectly fine as it is ("was hunted down") [no native speaker would use the phrase "was hunt (http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/hunt) down", sorry, you lose]

3) the past tense (as in, <player> is already dead) of hunt is not hunt (and the subject of the original sentence is not the swarm, either - that's an object clause)

4) <subject> "was <verb>ed" preposition (http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/preposit.html), object clause; where, due to tense, the entire verb is considered to be "was <blank>ed" (we don't really care about the swarm; the subject of the sentence, indeed the information being passed on, is that <player> was killed - killed by what is nothing but an interesting footnote)

5) plz do moar research in future if'n u wanna b teh resident grammah not-see, kthxbai
Title: Re: Grammar issue with spelling
Post by: CreatureofHell on May 20, 2009, 08:34:03 pm
three things

1) ppl who want to be grammar nazis should learn to spell "grammar"

2) no, it does not, u r wrong, it's perfectly fine as it is ("was hunted down") [no native speaker would use the phrase "was hunt (http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/hunt) down", sorry, you lose]

3) the past tense (as in, <player> is already dead) of hunt is not hunt (and the subject of the original sentence is not the swarm, either - that's an object clause)

+1  ;D
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: your face on May 20, 2009, 08:46:01 pm
p1 wins
Title: Re: Grammar issue with spelling
Post by: KillerWhale on May 21, 2009, 12:54:41 am
-snip-

I think Player1 just owned someone in grammar structure without using a single proper sentence or full word.

Wow.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on May 21, 2009, 03:43:47 am
"was" is past tense so after thing after it is sposed to be in infinitive form...... that includes hunt

And i agree hunted down sounds better until you add by the swarm to the end
even if you change "was" to "has been" it still specifies past tense so you would still use hunt
Title: Re: Grammar issue with know-it-alls
Post by: player1 on May 21, 2009, 04:30:39 am
1) rules schmules, what would a native speaker say?

2) I believe u mean past participle, which in this case happens to be the same as the infinitive

3) replace the verb "hunt" with the verb "kill" and see how that works out for you (was kill?)
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Undeference on May 21, 2009, 04:39:15 am
"was" is the auxiliary verb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verb) lending passive voice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice) to the past participle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle) "hunted". "was hunted" is a finite verb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_verb) (indicative mood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realis_mood#Indicative)) in present perfect tense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect_tense).

For infinitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive) "hunting" to be used, the sentence would have to be restructured as "the swarm was hunting UnnamedPlayer", which changes the implied meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature).

But IANAEM (I am not an English major) so don't quote me on that.
Title: Re: Grammar issue with know-it-alls
Post by: bacon665 on May 21, 2009, 05:23:04 am
1) rules schmules, what would a native speaker say?

2) I believe u mean past participle, which in this case happens to be the same as the infinitive

3) replace the verb "hunt" with the verb "kill" and see how that works out for you (was kill?)

"they went and hunt him down like a monkey"
"they went and kill him down like a monkey"

"they went and hunted him down like a monkey"
"they went and killed him down like a monkey"


erm.... not so sure kill is the best replacement to use as a proof.
 
I should have just made this a poll.
personally I could care less just figured id point it out in case you all wanted to change it.
I'm not the creator of the game so its contents have little relfection.
me shall spoke way i feel want when me does =P
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Archangel on May 21, 2009, 05:27:43 am
shut up
Title: Re: Grammar-rama
Post by: player1 on May 21, 2009, 05:44:31 am
@Undef: nice, thx

@OP: gl, cheers

@solar: lol
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Bissig on May 21, 2009, 05:55:38 pm
Compromise:

"was hunten down" - like in "stricken down".

;-P
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on May 21, 2009, 06:37:01 pm
Why compromise the rest of the statements are simple like
was bitten by
was gunned down by
could be as simple as was attacked or whatever

either way im gonna go enjoy myself on X server
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: your face on May 21, 2009, 07:33:56 pm
shut up

(http://www.danieldavidallen.com/danielallen/sharkgull_approves.jpg)
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: frazzler on May 23, 2009, 05:38:11 am
If you were to be right, we would then have to change '<player> was mass driven' to '<player> was mass drive by <player>' does this make sense?
or perhaps you would prefer '<player> was melt by an acid tube'. Yeah. then there is my favourite:
'<player> was shoot down by a turret' as opposed to '<player> was shot down by a turret'.

Clearly the devs of tremulous know how to spell.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Archangel on May 23, 2009, 07:04:28 am
either way im gonna go enjoy myself on X server

and this is why we ignore him
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on May 24, 2009, 02:23:45 am
Quote
and this is why we ignore him

and you having your posts edited like the "theres no such thing as i786" so that people dont see them is why people listen to you.

Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Archangel on May 24, 2009, 06:37:18 am
edited? that was my argument, i simply edited it to fix a few typos, add more information to make you look like the moron you are, but i can't remember what thread that's in, otherwise i'd quote it. :)
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on May 24, 2009, 06:42:21 pm
HA there was like 7 posts removed from that thread.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Paradox on May 29, 2009, 02:41:54 am
HA you’re a noob.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Helix. on May 29, 2009, 05:37:02 am
Wow at this kids fail. And, even if it was spelled wrong, do you have somewhat of a disease that you MUST fix everything?
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Man of Tacos on May 29, 2009, 06:55:19 am
Well they're both correct. However your wording is good. <-Ha Ha get it grammar mistake ha... no.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: CreatureofHell on May 29, 2009, 04:00:03 pm
Which both? Many people have said things :/
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Jedarus on May 30, 2009, 02:52:53 pm
Which both? Many people have said things :/

I tink he was referring to OP and player1.

But I still think bacon is ignorant of the english language, though his other posts seem to make perfect sense, albeit a few typos here and there.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: CreatureofHell on May 30, 2009, 03:36:55 pm
But the OP was wrong so it wouldn't make sense to say he is right.  :police:
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Nux on June 01, 2009, 10:50:37 pm
I was expecting you to be talking about "<player> fell fowl to gravity".

Out of interest bacon665, did you learn English as a second language?
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on June 02, 2009, 03:54:00 am
uh... i wouldnt say second language.....
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Nux on June 02, 2009, 02:01:14 pm
I'll take that as a yes. In that case please appreciate that we native speakers might be slightly more familiar with the use of the word 'hunt' then you.

That said, it isn't uncommon for non-native speakers to have a better grasp on the language, most likely because they aren't so prone to the ever corrupting slang.

Please Note: 'Second language' refers to any language learned after the first. That includes the ones you learned after the first fifteen language.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: kevlarman on June 02, 2009, 03:53:52 pm
I'll take that as a yes. In that case please appreciate that we native speakers might be slightly more familiar with the use of the word 'hunt' then you.

That said, it isn't uncommon for non-native speakers to have a better grasp on the language, most likely because they aren't so prone to the ever corrupting slang.

Please Note: 'Second language' refers to any language learned after the first. That includes the ones you learned after the first fifteen language.
when correcting someone's grammar, it's a good idea to correct your own first ;D
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on June 02, 2009, 06:47:00 pm
LOL. i was born and raised in america and english is my native language. But that being said the stupid trend of speaking multiple languages around kids started long before dora and heres the product i think in a mix of italian german and english.
That was all i meant by not exactly.

and yes i asked around like a bafoon and most people said you would sound like a fucking hick if you said " the bear was hunted down by the mob last night" just actually fucking say it instead of reading it.

infinitive and imperative are both hunt down http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-hunt%20down.html
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: CreatureofHell on June 02, 2009, 06:51:21 pm
Quote
Preterite
I hunted down
you hunted down
he/she/it hunted down
we hunted down
you hunted down
they hunted down

Proof!
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on June 02, 2009, 06:55:20 pm
yea that would be proof if the sentence wasnt a fucking infinitive.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Archangel on June 02, 2009, 07:44:32 pm
LOL. i was born and raised in america and english is my native language. But that being said the stupid trend of speaking multiple languages around kids started long before dora and heres the product i think in a mix of italian german and english.
That was all i meant by not exactly.

and yes i asked around like a bafoon and most people said you would sound like a fucking hick if you said " the bear was hunted down by the mob last night" just actually fucking say it instead of reading it.
buffoon ?
hunted: past tense, bro.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Nux on June 02, 2009, 08:16:15 pm
I'll take that as a yes. In that case please appreciate that we native speakers might be slightly more familiar with the use of the word 'hunt' then you.

That said, it isn't uncommon for non-native speakers to have a better grasp on the language, most likely because they aren't so prone to the ever corrupting slang.

Please Note: 'Second language' refers to any language learned after the first. That includes the ones you learned after the first fifteen language.
when correcting someone's grammar, it's a good idea to correct your own first ;D

Don't forget '...the first fifteen language' ;) I guess spell checker is no substitute for typing skills. :(

bacon: I'm surprised you, as a native speaker, managed to misunderstand this and then go on to link to a site which tells you over and over again that 'hunted' is the past tense.

Try this on for size: If I were to say "I hunt dogs" would I mean that there was a time I'd hunt dogs, or that I used to and still do hunt those damn dirty mongrels.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Urcscumug on June 02, 2009, 09:37:50 pm
I'm not sure why this has to be so complicated. I don't know all the fancy rules (learned them in school at some point, I'm sure) but I use a simple one: when you say 'he was verbed', the verb is in the 3rd form. "He was eaten", "he was chosen", "he was done" etc. I'm not aware of any exceptions. "He was hunted" may sound strange but that's how it is. Adding that kind of stuff to the verb (down, up, in, out, on, off, away, with -- I've no idea what they're called in this context) makes no difference.

Try it with "he was worn down" or "he was done in" and see what you think about "he was wore down" or "he was did in".
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Winnie the Pooh on June 02, 2009, 10:52:22 pm
That should be the end of the discussion, really.

This isn't really a matter of opinion, this is something that you can actually prove right or wrong.

So, end of dicussion. (I hope)
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on June 03, 2009, 03:07:22 am
you still havent grasped the fact once one word denotes the time "was" is past tense then everything after it is in infinitive form.
which is not past tense.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: mooseberry on June 03, 2009, 03:10:35 am
^^
Sore loser.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Helix. on June 03, 2009, 03:11:44 am
Please, just let it go. I don't believe it's a mistake, you might. But, even if it is, it's not the end of the world. Please end this.
Title: Re: Poster issue with cluelessness
Post by: player1 on June 03, 2009, 04:49:44 am
@OP: Either directly link or quote the rule you are constantly invoking, or provide examples where the verb is used in the fashion that you suggest. Or you could just admit that you are wrong and move on with your life.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Winnie the Pooh on June 03, 2009, 06:49:19 am
@OP: Either directly link or quote the rule you are constantly invoking, or provide examples where the verb is used in the fashion that you suggest. Or you could just admit that you are wrong and move on with your life.

Player1, don't forget to say please; it makes it all go down easier. 
 :( :angel: 8)
Title: Re: politeness issue with density
Post by: player1 on June 03, 2009, 07:08:16 am
please

(sry, Winnie, but after "fucking hick", "just fucking say it" & "fucking infinitive" i fucking thought we had fucking gone beyond the fucking politeness xD)
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Winnie the Pooh on June 03, 2009, 07:55:42 am
It's a last resort sort of thing.
Title: Re: +1
Post by: CreatureofHell on June 03, 2009, 04:02:51 pm
please

(sry, Winnie, but after "fucking hick", "just fucking say it" & "fucking infinitive" i fucking thought we had fucking gone beyond the fucking politeness xD)

 :D
Title: Re: politeness issue with density
Post by: Asvarox on June 03, 2009, 04:33:11 pm
(sry, Winnie, but after "fucking hick", "just fucking say it" & "fucking infinitive" i fucking thought we had fucking gone beyond the fucking politeness xD)
Lol. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol_75jFEpck#t=0m57s)
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Nux on June 03, 2009, 04:59:59 pm
I'm happy to continue trying to convince you.

"was hunted down" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&q=%22was+hunted+down%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) gives 18,800 results. These include the site of 'The Daily Telegraph' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578360/Boy-16-was-hunted-down-by-knife-gang.html), the highest selling British 'quality' paper.

"was hunt down" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&q=%22was+hunt+down%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) on Google gives 1,080 results.

Furthermore, if we refine the search to English pages (using Googles advanced search):

We get 17,900 results for "was hunted down" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&as_q=&as_epq=was+hunted+down&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=lang_en&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off) but only 688 sites that have it written as "was hunt down" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&as_q=&as_epq=was+hunt+down&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=lang_en&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off)
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: bacon665 on June 03, 2009, 06:17:32 pm
Then theres a fairly large amount who also think its correct. =D
This wasnt meant to be a discussion. I found what i beleive is an error and made sure of myself before i posted it if you think im wrong then stfu and get out of the thread.

But if you really insist on an example using an infinitive put ed at the end of every word in a past tense sentence.
Title: Re: Spammer issue with denial
Post by: player1 on June 03, 2009, 07:05:47 pm
Ladies & Gentlemen, Your Moron:

stfu & gtfo

^^sez teh man who iz quite literally out of ideas^^


@OP:
Step 0: Denial  <--- u r here
 
Step 1: Honesty
After many years of denial, recovery can begin when with one simple admission of being powerless over ignorance -- for ignoramuses and their friends and family.

Step 2: Faith
It seems to be a spiritual truth, that before a higher power can begin to operate, you must first believe that it can.

Step 3: Surrender
A lifetime of self-will run riot can come to a screeching halt, and change forever, by making a simple decision to turn it all over to a higher power.

Step 4: Soul Searching
There is a saying in the 12-step programs that recovery is a process, not an event. The same can be said for this step -- more will surely be revealed.

Step 5: Integrity
Probably the most difficult of all the steps to face, Step 5 is also the one that provides the greatest opportunity for growth.

Step 6: Acceptance
The key to Step 6 is acceptance -- accepting character defects exactly as they are and becoming entirely willing to let them go.

Step 7: Humility
The spiritual focus of Step 7 is humility, asking a higher power to do something that cannot be done by self-will or mere determination.

Step 8: Willingness
Making a list of those harmed before coming into recovery may sound simple. Becoming willing to actually make those amends is the difficult part.

Step 9: Forgiveness
Making amends may seem like a bitter pill to swallow, but for those serious about recovery it can be great medicine for the spirit and soul.

Step 10: Maintenance
Nobody likes to admit to being wrong. But it is absolutely necessary to maintain spiritual progress in recovery.

Step 11: Making Contact
The purpose of Step 11 is to discover the plan God as you understand Him has for your life.

Step 12: Service
For those in recovery programs, practicing Step 12 is simply "how it works."

Poster was pissed off by the respondents.

Noun was verb-ed preposition subordinate clause.

You lose. Let the healing begin.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Thorn on June 03, 2009, 07:09:33 pm
shut up

edit: ehh player1 got his post in first. was directed at bacon
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: CreatureofHell on June 03, 2009, 07:23:15 pm
But if you really insist on an example using an infinitive put ed at the end of every word in a past tense sentence.

Please be aware that the verb 'to hunt' is a regular verb so the past tense is 'I hunted'
Regular verbs follow the pattern of having -ed added to the verb in the past tense.
Some verbs are irregular such as the verb 'to eat' in which the past tense it 'I ate'
Title: Re: Usage issue with "rules" of grammar
Post by: player1 on June 03, 2009, 07:35:35 pm
I'm happy to continue trying to convince you.

"was hunted down" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&q=%22was+hunted+down%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) gives 18,800 results. These include the site of 'The Daily Telegraph' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578360/Boy-16-was-hunted-down-by-knife-gang.html), the highest selling British 'quality' paper.

"was hunt down" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&q=%22was+hunt+down%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) on Google gives 1,080 results.

Furthermore, if we refine the search to English pages (using Googles advanced search):

We get 17,900 results for "was hunted down" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&as_q=&as_epq=was+hunted+down&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=lang_en&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off) but only 688 sites that have it written as "was hunt down" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&as_q=&as_epq=was+hunt+down&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=lang_en&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off)

@Nux: Nicely done, and I have to say that before I even posted the first time in this thread, I did a little searching myself.

To the OP, I'd like to say, consider the issue of usage and the vernacular, dynamic, ever-changing nature of language. Most of the instances one can find of "was hunt down" are a completely different sort of emphasis, such as: The first thing I did when I got up this morning was hunt down instances of "was hunt down" on teh intarwebz. For the sort of sentence we are discussing here ("Noun was hunt-ed down by the noun."), one can find a few instances of "hunt" and an overwhelming preponderance of "hunted", which means that most users of the language find the second form to be more to their liking. I would say that neither is actually "wrong" but that majority of native-speaking users of the language would not find the -ed form objectionable, would actually find it more natural, and would be inclined to use it themselves, whether or not some second-grade teacher still wants to crack knuckles with rulers over such small infractions as this, split infinitives, or spelling syrup with an i.

@Thorn: No worries. A good "shut up" enlivens any thread, especially a qft'd one, especially in this sort of Poster Was Piss-ed Off by the Mob type.

Maybe we need a new category. #n+1: "Hey gaiz luk teh devs r teh grammer duncez"

How about a change of subject?

Speaking of linguistics, did you guys know that the name Ked Ambrit seems to be composed of Gaelic elements? Considering Timbo's location and the etymology of the word "dretch", do you think there are any other hidden language Easter Eggs yet buried in the enigma that is Tremulous?
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Baconizer on June 03, 2009, 09:56:30 pm
Quote from: Wikipedia
Granger is a surname of English and French origin. It is an occupational name for a farm bailiff. The farm bailiff oversaw the collection of rent and taxes from the barns and storehouses of the lord of the manor. This officer's Anglo-Norman title was grainger, and Old French grangier, which are both derived from the Late Latin granicarius (a a derivative of granica, meaning "granary").

Then theres a fairly large amount who also think its correct. =D
This wasnt meant to be a discussion. I found what i beleive is an error and made sure of myself before i posted it if you think im wrong then stfu and get out of the thread.

But if you really insist on an example using an infinitive put ed at the end of every word in a past tense sentence.
lawlz

Epic Win
:D <3
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Winnie the Pooh on June 03, 2009, 10:14:51 pm
Then theres a fairly large amount who also think its correct. =D

So what? We already know that there are more 9 year olds out there. It's not a groundbreaking discovery.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Bissig on June 03, 2009, 11:24:39 pm
The Bacon### was slammed down by the masses - kthxbai.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Baconizer on June 04, 2009, 01:18:57 am
The Bacon### was slam down by the masses - kthxbai.
Fixed.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: + OPTIMUS + on June 04, 2009, 02:47:35 am
i've been basilisk down the other day.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Winnie the Pooh on June 04, 2009, 07:04:22 am
@OP: Keep in mind that the english language is not (or at least shouldn't be) governed by rules and crazy laws, but by what sounds right and what is accepted in the general population of the location.
Title: Re: linkage
Post by: player1 on June 06, 2009, 10:32:36 am
simple & complete subject & predicate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Language/2006_September_11#simple_subject_vs._complete_subject) (oh, look the verb is "was shot down", not "was shoot down")
Title: Re: Grammar issue with spelling
Post by: BobTheDemonicTwit on June 08, 2009, 08:55:01 pm

[/quote]

I think Player1 just owned someone in grammar structure without using a single proper sentence or full word.

Wow.
[/quote]


I think P1 is as smart as me and everybody else here are sore losers.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: CreatureofHell on June 08, 2009, 09:31:21 pm
Uh excuse me but most people here were saying that bacon665 was wrong so why would we be sore losers?
Title: Re: Grammar issue with spelling
Post by: mooseberry on June 09, 2009, 01:26:29 am

Quote from: someone
I think Player1 just owned someone in grammar structure without using a single proper sentence or full word.

Wow.


I think P1 is as smart as me and everybody else here are sore losers.

oh dear
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Baconizer on June 09, 2009, 01:47:26 am


Quote tags are confusing!

[/quote]
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: your face on June 09, 2009, 06:41:21 pm

Quote from: someone
I think Player1 just owned someone in grammar structure without using a single proper sentence or full word.

Wow.


I think P1 is as smart as me and everybody else here are sore losers.

oh dear
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: Helix. on June 09, 2009, 08:37:05 pm
This is the dumbest topic ever.
Title: Re: Grammer issue with death
Post by: N.U.K.E. on June 10, 2009, 08:39:34 pm
What's next? A grammar holocaust on trem.net?

GET TO THE BUNKERS!