Many of our writers need to explore the difference between "passed" and "past". When someone walks by you, they passed you. If they did it yesterday, they passed you in the past! The last time you died, your past may have passed before your eyes; but your passed didn't! Passed is always a verb. Past maybe be an adjective, a noun, an adverb, or even a preposition, but never a verb. I feel much better now that I've ranted!
Another one is doubling consonants. When adding an ending like -ing or -ed to a word, there is a simple rule to follow. If the preceding vowel is long, the consonant is not doubled. Ex: dine, dining. If the vowel is short, the consonant is doubled. Ex: dam, dammed. A few of my favorite authors don't seem to know this rule, and while I can read past it, it always bugs me a little.
If the preceding vowel is long, the consonant is not doubled.
Not always.
Traveled/traveling (the "e" before the "l" is not long, yet the consonant is not doubled).
Unless you use British English which spells it "travelled" (the correct way per your rule).
ETA: This is from Grammarly.com
The word travel has more than one syllable—it's a multisyllabic word. In American English, when a multisyllabic word ends in a vowel and a consonant (in that order), you double the consonant when adding a suffix only if the stress falls on the final syllable. For instance, in the word repel, the stress falls on the final syllable, which means that you double the consonant when you add a suffix: repelling. But in travel, the stress falls on the first syllable, so there's no doubling.
If the preceding vowel is long, the consonant is not doubled.
Not always.
Traveled/traveling (the "e" before the "l" is not long, yet the consonant is not doubled).
Unless you use British English which spells it "travelled" (the correct way per your rule).
What can I say? English itself is just as much about exceptions as it is rules, and American English I think is even more so. I blew Attic Greek because I couldn't remember all the exceptions, but that was because I had to do them all at once. In English, we learn them one at a time, and they become ingrained pretty much by osmosis, with High School (Levels 9-11 for you across the pond, if I understand the correlation) classes just tuning up the edges.
and they become ingrained pretty much by osmosis,
Not for me. I always spell it "travelled" and Word's spellchecker tells me it's wrong so I delete one "l".
Another one is doubling consonants. When adding an ending like -ing or -ed to a word, there is a simple rule to follow. If the preceding vowel is long, the consonant is not doubled. Ex: dine, dining. If the vowel is short, the consonant is doubled. Ex: dam, dammed.
When I was a wee lad at school, I was taught that when you add 'ing' or 'ed' to the end of a word and it ended in a consonant preceded by a single vowel you doubled the last letter. However, that's the rule in UK English, and the US English rarely follows that rule. It was never presented to me as being the sound length of the vowel.
Re Your Grammarly quote: See, I told you there was a rule about it. I just didn't have all of it. Thanks for the additional info.
You can never run through a camp-ground, you must always ran -- because it is past tents!! (LOL)
You can never run through a camp-ground, you must always ran -- because it is past tents!! (LOL)
Thanks for the laugh - we were getting two tents in here!
We are way past tense, we live in bungalows now.
But dis ol' cave is better insulated and harder to burn down.
Just as a matter of interest, why do you keep peeves around as pets? Dogs, cats, rabbits, goldfish, and even mice I can understand keeping as pets, but aren't peeves too annoying to keep as a pet?
Just as a matter of interest, why do you keep peeves around as pets? Dogs, cats, rabbits, goldfish, and even mice I can understand keeping as pets, but aren't peeves too annoying to keep as a pet?
Yes, but they do a good job of keeping you on your tows.
aren't peeves too annoying to keep as a pet?
Ernest, as annoying as they are, they don't eat much, never shit on the floor, and don't shed. When you tire of them, they are easy to get rid of: simply give them to an author who will use them until they die of over-use.
but aren't peeves too annoying to keep as a pet?
Nah, they bug the hell out of the neighbors, but, raised properly they are vary loving with their owners. :)
Nah, they bug the hell out of the neighbors, but, raised properly they are vary loving with their owners. :)
While my pet peeves may annoy you, they've never bothered me in the least. 'D But, if you're willing, I'll loan them to you so you can properly train them for me.
Why doesn't anyone use 'laid' anymore? I am seeing an awful lot of 'lied' when my grammar meter is telling me it should be laid. Is my meter right, or do I need to have it recalibrated?
Why doesn't anyone use 'laid' anymore? I am seeing an awful lot of 'lied' when my grammar meter is telling me it should be laid. Is my meter right, or do I need to have it recalibrated?
lied - you told an untruth.
lie/lay - reclining
lay/laid - put something down
past tense -- You can't lied on the bed or lied down on the bed. You lay on the bed or lay down on the bed.
past tense -- Also, you can't laid down on the bed. You lay down on the bed. (although this error is so common I bet it will be accepted)
After harvesting the organs he needed for his experiment, Professor Trumpfenwangler lyed the rest of the corpse to destroy the evidence :)
(Exploiting English fluidity and using lye as a verb.)
AJ
Exploiting English fluidity
The fluidity of English must confound those who don't speak it as their native language. Think of the verb (and noun) "run". There probably are over a hundred meaning for that simple three letter word. By the way, did the professor lie about lying the corpse after he laid the body to rest?
After harvesting the organs he needed for his experiment, Professor Trumpfenwangler lyed the rest of the corpse to destroy the evidence :)
And now the zombie corpse will never trust a word he says again!
Why doesn't anyone use 'laid' anymore?
Perhaps there's an era of celibacy and nobody gets laid ;)
AJ
Cats have fur, dogs have hair. Hence having some "hair of the dog" on the morning after. Never heard anyone talk about having some "fur of the dog", yet I've seen quite a few writers talk about a dog's fur.
Cats have fur, dogs have hair.
Not all dogs. Those with hair (e.g., German Shepard) don't need haircuts because they shed. Those with fur (e.g., Shih Tzu like I had) have fur and need haircuts.
Shih Tzus still have hair, it's not as coarse as other dogs, but it's not fur.
Same as Pomeranians etc.
The need for regular hair cuts is either due to living in an unsuitable climate (eg huskies in tropical areas), and more & more, breeding for specific traits going way too far.
Cats have fur, dogs have hair.
No, some dogs have hair, some dogs have fur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_(dog)
The terms fur and hair are often used interchangeably when describing a dog's coat, however in general, a double coat, e.g., like that of the Newfoundland and most mountain dogs, is referred to as a fur coat, while a single coat, like that of the Poodle, is referred to as a hair coat.
No, some dogs have hair, some dogs have fur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_(dog)
Very first sentence.
The coat of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) refers to the hair that covers its body.
The only time I've ever seen the terms used interchangably are from US based authors.
I'm guessing it's like he use of drugged for dragged, it's just used more widely; instead of referring to the thickness or thickness of the hair coverage they say fur or hair.
The only time I've ever seen the terms used interchangably are from US based authors.
Not just US based authors. This gets done by AKC (American Kennel Club) and UKC (United Kennel Club, it's a US based organization not connected to the UK in any way) breeders.
To me, the quoted distinction (single coat vs double coat) makes more sense for hair vs fur than trying to use thickness of individual hairs or thickness of coverage.
Most other animals that are considered fur bearing are double coated. Mink, beaver, foxes, pretty much anything you might think of as being used to make a fur coat are double coated.
Double coated means there are two layers of hair, an under coat of courser hair that provides most of the thermal insulation, and a longer overcoat.
All cat breeds, and dog breeds that shed seasonally are double coated. It's the insulating undercoat that gets shed. They shed the winter undercoat in the spring and grow back a lighter undercoat for the summer, then in fall they shed the light summer undercoat and grow in a heaver warmer undercoat.
To me, the quoted distinction (single coat vs double coat) makes more sense for hair vs fur than trying to use thickness of individual hairs or thickness of coverage.
Fur v hair as I've known it was about the texture of the coat, not it's thickness/thinness, number of layers or length.
Horse hair, cow hair, dog hair, elephant hair (coarse and stiff for it's length) v seal fur, cat fur, kangaroo fur, koala fur (fine and soft for it's length) etc.
Horse hair, cow hair, dog hair, elephant hair (coarse and stiff for it's length) v seal fur, cat fur, kangaroo fur, koala fur (fine and soft for it's length) etc.
Horses, cows and elephants are single coated. Seals (or any marine mammal with any kind of hair), cats, and koalas are double coated. I don't know about kangaroos.
In any case, it's a purely artificial distinction.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-difference-be/
Horse hair, cow hair, dog hair, elephant hair (coarse and stiff for it's length)
Neither human nor dog hair fits this course/stiff=hair vs fine and soft distinction.
Dog hair comes in all kinds of different levels of length, thickness and stiffness, so does human hair.
In any case, it's a purely artificial distinction.
I agree.
As I mentioned, it's always been based on texture for as long a I've been aware of a distinction, yet others say it's based on layers/coats.
Neither human nor dog hair fits this course/stiff=hair vs fine and soft distinction.
Dog hair comes in all kinds of different levels of length, thickness and stiffness, so does human hair.
Yep, and they all feel very different to the fur of Cats (short or long), Kangaroos etc.
Yep, and they all feel very different to the fur of Cats (short or long), Kangaroos etc.
Nope, lots of hair falls into the category you call fur and a lot of fur falls into what you call hair. It's a non-distinction because both hair and fur is highly variable for both thickness and stiffness at any length.
It's a non-distinction because both hair and fur is highly variable for both thickness and stiffness at any length.
Ignore the part about stiffness & thickness then.
Consider it a poor attempt at trying to describe the difference between the two, that difference being the texture/feel of them.
that difference being the texture/feel of them.
That is too subjective, and there is too much variance in texture/feel on both sides for that to be a viable distinguishing characteristic.
Single vs double coat is at least objective.
Ignore the part about stiffness & thickness then.
Hey! This is SOL, we can't ignore descriptions of 'thickness and stiffness' or even length! 'D