Liutauras Vilda wrote:If driving, that means driving and not playing candy crush whilst driving.
Driving while using a cell phone has gotten so bad here that now people are taking pictures of accidents as they drive by! Police have issued warnings that not only is that illegal, it could also make the situation worse by causing another accident. Plus, the families of these accident victims have to deal with their loved ones being in an accident and being either injured or killed - they don't want to see pictures of their loved ones' wrecked car on social media.
But I have taken this topic way off centre!
Randy Maddocks wrote:Driving while using a cell phone has gotten so bad here
In Ontario Canada, possibly all of Canada, it is illegal to use a cell phone why driving, unless it's hands free. If you get caught you can get a fine of more then $100.
However I do see people doing this and I know people who have texted/SMSed and drove at the same time. At least they did a few months ago, I don't know if they still do.
There have been some studies that which have stated that even with hands free phone conversations, the act of using a phone while driving is still dangerous and a distraction.
Tim Cooke wrote:Do not fret. Here in Meaningless Drivel, off-topic is on-topic.
A name that aptly fits this forum!
Pete Letkeman wrote:There have been some studies that which have stated that even with hands free phone conversations, the act of using a phone while driving is still dangerous and a distraction.
Heck, turning your attention to the buttons on the console, as an example, for even a few seconds can be enough to cause you to get in an accident, so it stands to reason that it doesn't take much to become distracted.
For example Colour could be used rather than the misspelt (note the t) Color.
And no more of those horrid z words, Synchronized can be corrected to Synchronised.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:No, were one at Oxford, one would have to correct the keyword to
Thank you, Inspector Morse.
Liutauras Vilda wrote:Say what you want, but one of the best mis or just pronunciations I hear often is init(), which of course means isn’t it. I don’t think americans or canadians do that. But when I worked in Bermondsey (borough of London), I used to have mastered it, because this is what people understand there.
Well they would, innit?
Actually, I've seen "init" lately, but it's a contraction of innit, which is contracted i'n'it, which started out as isn't it, except that's not always literally what it means anymore.
Remember the comma is the important part.
Tim Holloway wrote:. . . Thank you, Inspector Morse.
It is common to pronounce that sort of sentence with tiny breaks after the words salmon and tuna. In which case the Oxford comma/serial comma is correct. Missing out the comma and the break in speech might suggest that the tuna and halibut were somehow combined, separately from the salmon.
Tim Holloway wrote:Besides, my German studies, have made me, to the use of commas prolific.
Placing commas probably have slightly different rules per language, but I think all carry the same goal - to bring a meaning. Having said that, I'd think that your second and third commas in an exam would be considered as the grammatical (punctuation actually) errors. Wouldn't they?
Speaking of speech pauses, I watched the 1950's film of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar the other day and one thing that really annoyed me was that so many of the actors were rattling off their lines willy-nilly. It's obvious that they didn't really thing of what they were saying was real speech, since although words and phrasing have both changed since the days of the Bard, I cannot credit that people spoke in run-on sentences back then.
I also kept thinking "Captain Nemo" every time Brutus spoke, but that's another story. Brando sounded like an agitated Godfather, even at the height of Marc Antony's famous speech. But they are honorable men. All, honorable men.