dagblog - Comments for "How to wite gud"

It was probably edited.

cmaukonen — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:27:01 +0000

In reply to I think 'have' in this case

It was probably edited.

I think 'have' in this case

EmmaZahn — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:09:00 +0000

In reply to Ok, I'm embarrassed. But I

I think 'have' in this case is a typo. On other lists of Safire's fumblerules, the sentence is "Verbs has to agree with their subjects." Not sure which which lists are accurate and I do not really care enough to buy Safire's book. :-D

http://dmorgan.web.wesleyan.edu/materials/safire.htm

You're not the only one who

Verified Atheist — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:25:12 +0000

In reply to Ok, I'm embarrassed. But I

You're not the only one who doesn't get it. Maybe there's a historical difference there, but I'm not getting it either. A quick Google search turned up nothing.

Ok, I'm embarrassed. But I

Dan Kervick — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:12:24 +0000

In reply to How to wite gud

Ok, I'm embarrassed. But I get all of them except "Verbs have to agree with their subjects." How would the agreement in that sentence be corrected?

/snort Never really

EmmaZahn — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:08:05 +0000

In reply to How to wite gud

/snort

Never really appreciated Safire before. Every sentence a negative example of its own admonition. Too funny. Thanks.

Funny! I break every one of

Ramona — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:35:44 +0000

In reply to How to wite gud

Funny! I break every one of Safire's rules. (Not on purpose.) I should just pack up my quills and go home, but I ain't gonna do it. No way, no how.

Safire was a cool guy in some

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:54:30 +0000

In reply to How to wite gud

Safire was a cool guy in some ways. A bit authoritarian though.