Shit Stories: Part Number Two
As a regular service to our readers, we've been re-opening old questions.
Once again, we want to hear your stories of shit, poo and number twos. Go on - be filthier than last time.
( , Thu 27 Mar 2008, 14:57)
As a regular service to our readers, we've been re-opening old questions.
Once again, we want to hear your stories of shit, poo and number twos. Go on - be filthier than last time.
( , Thu 27 Mar 2008, 14:57)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Off of
'Off of' makes me laugh, it's usually used for comedic effect on Scott Mills though of course.
example: "David Hasselhoff, off of the eighties". It's daft, he's not really from the eighties specifically, but he is associated clearly with that period. He is obviously associated with many other things, but it seems funny to pick one, especially something that many other people are associated with and is certainly not specific to him.
It's funnier than "David Hasselhoff, off of Knightrider", which other than being grammatically horrible, is more specific than the eighties - a more general term.
Why the fuck am i banging on about this.
Also, "Eats Shoots and Leaves" annoys me. It's capitalised (correctly) because its a title but the book is about grammar. That phrase is unusual as a title, it would be more commonly found in a sentence and thus "Eats shoots and leaves". I think the captalisation detracts from it's intended point.
But then, noone would buy a book called "Grammar and that". Although, actually, that's not bad.
( , Wed 2 Apr 2008, 13:43, Reply)
'Off of' makes me laugh, it's usually used for comedic effect on Scott Mills though of course.
example: "David Hasselhoff, off of the eighties". It's daft, he's not really from the eighties specifically, but he is associated clearly with that period. He is obviously associated with many other things, but it seems funny to pick one, especially something that many other people are associated with and is certainly not specific to him.
It's funnier than "David Hasselhoff, off of Knightrider", which other than being grammatically horrible, is more specific than the eighties - a more general term.
Why the fuck am i banging on about this.
Also, "Eats Shoots and Leaves" annoys me. It's capitalised (correctly) because its a title but the book is about grammar. That phrase is unusual as a title, it would be more commonly found in a sentence and thus "Eats shoots and leaves". I think the captalisation detracts from it's intended point.
But then, noone would buy a book called "Grammar and that". Although, actually, that's not bad.
( , Wed 2 Apr 2008, 13:43, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread