Friday, 29th August, 2014
Fajr: 5:19am (ends 6:46am), Dhuhr: 12:22pm
`Asr: 3:29pm, Maghrib: 5:57pm, `Ishaa': 7:19pm

Donate to help a brother get surgery done insha'Allah!

 

Thread: Our spelling...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    hoppers crossing
    Posts
    84
    Default
    salam brothers and sisters
    theres nothing wrong if u misspell a word or put in a wrong a word but its good to learn from mistakes
    wasalam
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    Habibi Mecca Cola,

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    Rest assured Isa, as someone studying linguistics and especially language change/formation I'm well aware of not only the history of the word 'egges/eggs' but also the topics surrounding language change.

    I suggested that there may be a group of ardent anti-académie style posters here as a light-hearted joke.

    Nevertheless, those who use alot can only be accused of using phonemic spelling, there are few who would pronounce the term /'eı 'lɒt/ rather you see mostly - /'əlɒt/ or /'əlɒʔ/. From this we even see the word 'alotta' which is a contraction of 'a lot of' which in speech is /'əlɒɾʌ/.
    As Australian English in particular is well known for these phonemic spellings and ortographical speech-based contractions (just think of g'day for an example) most won't even think twice before using 'alot' or 'awhile' and in time I could almost assure you the term alot will appear in the dictionaries as there is nothing about the term which would not allow it to do so.

    I do agree with the Word-influenced -ize usage... We are Aussies, and no program will change the way we spell! We write standardise and not standardize, colour and not color, mum and not mom!
    Yaa Habibi Mecca Cola,

    Firstly, Allaah yahdeek Yaa Habibi!

    Secondly, I am but a layperson when it comes to lingistics, at best, an amateur etymologist. Maybe not even that, but a pro-etymologist would be more proper? Anyway.

    Thirdly, I was referring to your comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    Maybe they mean - Alot is a town and a nagar panchayat in Ratlam district in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India.

    Or they are influenced by the fact that in its origins in Proto-North Sarawak in which it was written as alud and can't seem to shkae it off.

    Or they are aware that language is alive and ever-changing. How long ago was the proper way to write eggs still 'egges'?
    I am sane enough to understand that your first two comments were just plain playing funnies. Your last statement however was a challenge and I took it up bi'idhni'L-Laah.

    I am still waiting for the answer to the question you asked!

    You allude to the fact that the use of egges was as if it was like a few years back! Whereas I could only come to the conclusion that by the farthest stretch of reasoning (according to Sheikh Google) the last time that I could justify the use of the word egges was by Aubrey, upto his death 1697, which is 47 years post the Middle English period, the period when the word egg was taught to be spelt egges.

    So, your allusion in my sight was an unjust one!

    "Come on, just look at how long ago we used the spelling of the word egg, as egge? So the use of alot could change in just as short an amount of time!" This is the impression I got from your comment;

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    . . . Or they are aware that language is alive and ever-changing. How long ago was the proper way to write eggs still 'egges'?
    Maybe you were making fun of the people that could possibly argue as such? I dunno. If this was the case, I apologise for assuming that you were making a challenge.

    Allaah is the Witness of our hearts, intentions and actions.

    Although, changing tables around by stating in your second lengthy post (OK, not as lengthy as mine ), that the word alot may be a part of our dictionary because the word g'day made it, is not right. Only because, the fact that the word g'day is in the dictionaries of today. Also, the word g'day was in our language phonetically. So for it to enter the dictionary is no surprise! Colloquial English makes it to the dictionary, so what?

    Please, what is so colloquial or phonetical about alot that would deserve it to enter the dictionaries?

    Yes, they may pronounce the word as a compound word, however, when you ask them to emphasise it, then you shall see that indeed, they are aware that it is two seperate words. Most unlike the word g'day, where they can emphasise it both ways, as in the example below.

    I have heard people say g'day whilst emphasising it, as both "Good-day!", and "Guh-day!". On the other hand, I have NEVER heard the word alot be emphasised upon as "Al-lot!", or even, "Al-ot!" for that matter. It has always been emphasised as "A-lot!", ya`nee as two seperate words.

    Go on, here's an exercise for you Habibi, next time you go to dars at IISNA, or to any large gathering, or even when you meet up with other friends, ask them to emphasise both the words g'day and a lot. I am quiet sure that bi'idhni'L-Laah, whoever you ask about the words (that has proper English), you may get a variant of guh-day or good-day, but you will not get a variant of a lot alluding to al-lot, or al-ot, where the two seperate words seems conjoined. Jot down your findings and I am sure that you will see what I am saying is true. Allaahu A`lam bi'th-thawaab.

    All in all, I would still request from you, min fadlik, to let us know:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    . . . How long ago was the proper way to write eggs still 'egges'?


    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Aphrodite View Post
    . . . I believe some people actually dont post because they feel they cannot spell or write well, and i think drawing attention to it, makes them feel even worse and hence dont post.
    Rachael, did you read my initial post? The thread starter? I advise EVERYONE that would take offence to my thread to read it, if they did not initially.

    For easier reference, I quote from my self;

    Now, some of us spell words differently to others, and I don't mind this when the general spelling of the poster is not up to scratch to begin with.

    However, when I see my more grammatically aware Brothers and Sisters make these mistakes, it saddens me to say the least. I am not talking about the typos made here and there, I see the Brothers and Sisters commit these heinous atrocities time and time again!
    Also, the spellcheck idea can be more daunting than it sounds Rachael.

    Most, if not all spellcheckers, are based upon American English as default. To change the settings is not always that straight forward.

    I remember when I would keep on changing my spellcheck settings from US English to Aus English in Word, from the settings tab continuously! For some reason, it would keep reverting back to English US. Yes, I would select English AU and tick "set as default", but it would somehow keep reverting!

    So, I believe that if people are conscious about their spelling, they should either attempt to correct themselves, and if they have to no avail, then it is of no fault of themselves, and they have nothing to be ashamed about, and they should continue just as they are. Anyone that picks on them should be ashamed, not themselves!

    Peace.
    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    [recluse] Al Baitel 'ateeq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Within Allah's Mercy
    Posts
    10,582
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by isa View Post
    for making me aware Ukhtee UnsurAlUmmah. Where is this thread? Could you please post up the link and I will ask a moderator to join this thread to that one if it is about the same thing ?

    Or if you do not mind, could you save me the trouble and do me the favour of asking a mod to change it instead?

    If you do, could you please let me be aware, and everyone else that contributed to this thread that the change has occurred, so we can continue there ?

    Again,

    I searched for the thread before making you aware it existed, but could not find it. If i (or anyone else finds it) i'm sure we'll let you know insha-Allah.
    أَوْلَادُكُمْ فِتْنَةٌ
    Qur'an 8:28

    "I don't know if i'm getting better or just used to the pain."
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    479
    Default
    Another thing to watch out for: A lot of people say "I would of thought..." rather than "I would have thought..." I guess the confusion is in "would've" (short for 'would have') being written as "would of".
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    359
    Default
    Add there/their/they're to the list.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Abu Sufyaan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,983
    Default
    On the point of American and British method of spelling, I tend to spell the American way. This goes back to when I was still in Primary School.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    ...Just to clarify...

    The egges example was the first example that jumped into my head simply because it was sitting on a piece of paper in front of me.

    To examine the subject seriously -
    Another is 2 words - 'an other', however over time the spelling came to match the pronunciation and it became 1 word.
    Apart is made up of two words 'a' and 'part' etc. thera era many many examples just using a simlar pattern as 'alot'.

    The main contention here though is about language change.
    There are always those who say we should stick to what exists and there should be no variation, and the common trends forcing change to take place.
    Look at the words of one linguist on his stance on language change-
    'Our tung shold be written cleane and pure, vnmixt and vnmangeled with borrowing og other tunges' (John Cheke, 1557)
    As history bears witness, lhis attempts failed miserably, the way we write and speak is vastly different to Cheke's times.
    Does that mean that the language indeed did become corrupted? Did it become impure or less of a language?

    Its hard to say generally. There are times I will refuse to take up some changes (most of the time actually) and times when a change will be welcomed or even seen as an improvement.
    The revision of American (US) spelling was based around this (along with helping to carve a new national identity seperate to that of Britain), making spelling represent pronunciation more clearly.

    Even Shakespeare was responsible for introducing many new words into the English language, such as - 'obscene', accomodation' and 'laughable', words we couldn't imagine not using these days.

    New words, new spellings and new variations on words are constantly arising especially in our age. Standards are fastly becoming obsolete, words like 'oxen' are becoming a thing of the past and 'oxes' is becoming more common. Platypii and virii are becoming platypuses and viruses.
    Just as English lost its inflivted endings and words like stana became 'stones' and egges became 'eggs', English also began to standardise its many plural forms into a single form with many of the Germanic and Latin plural forms becoming obsolete and they do until today (as in oxen (germanic) and virii (latin)).

    I'm sure you can understand a bit about language change, you'd be well aware of many examples that you would use yourself. Just as these changes continue to take place, the case of 'alot' over 'a lot' is occuring nowadays. Unfortunately or language purists the trends all indicate that in time 'alot' will be an equal standard along with 'a lot', however this is one of the rare cases where I am well behind the inclusion of the dear term into our vocabulary.

    As for then/than, and the others I agree without doubt that the standard and non-standard are clear and should always be obeyed...
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    bubu <3 Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,030
    Default
    Inquire vs. Enquire

    Disorganised vs. Unorganised

    Presume vs. Assume

    My 2 riyals worth.
    "Indeed gentleness does not enter into anything except it beautifies it, nor is it removed from anything except that it disfigures it." - Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) [Muslim 12/212]


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    wasajahilnotnow your sister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,428
    Default
    tutulutulu this sounds like the english class i always wanted to wag
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #31
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default


    Habibi, I read your response, but for the majority of your statement, you never answered my query of your egges query, in a clear fashion.

    Just as your query was a straightforward one, so was my one.

    Quote:
    <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">
    Originally Posted by Mecca Cola
    . . . How long ago was the proper way to write eggs still 'egges'?
    </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
    Also, your reply was filled with linguistical changes that I never argued about, and to be quite frank, I did not understand why you ever brought it up, and why you made such a big deal of it???

    Khayr

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    ...Just to clarify...

    The egges example was the first example that jumped into my head simply because it was sitting on a piece of paper in front of me.
    So, we have learnt the lesson of not saying/typing the first thing that comes to mind I believe that was a very bad example to use.

    Also, when was the word egges last used?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    To examine the subject seriously -
    Another is 2 words - 'an other', however over time the spelling came to match the pronunciation and it became 1 word.
    Apart is made up of two words 'a' and 'part' etc. thera era many many examples just using a simlar pattern as 'alot'.
    Habibi these words are what they teach as compound words. Two seperate words, spelt as one!

    As my argument still stands, these words have made it into the dictionary, and there is no matter to spell it as such. Actually, it has become wrong to spell them separately!

    I never said that I disagree with words changing. I have always stated that I stand for using correct English when we are made aware of it and use it. That is all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    The main contention here though is about language change.
    There are always those who say we should stick to what exists and there should be no variation, and the common trends forcing change to take place.
    Look at the words of one linguist on his stance on language change-
    'Our tung shold be written cleane and pure, vnmixt and vnmangeled with borrowing og other tunges' (John Cheke, 1557)
    As history bears witness, lhis attempts failed miserably, the way we write and speak is vastly different to Cheke's times.
    Does that mean that the language indeed did become corrupted? Did it become impure or less of a language?
    You mean your main contention, as it was never my main contention at all

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    Its hard to say generally. There are times I will refuse to take up some changes (most of the time actually) and times when a change will be welcomed or even seen as an improvement.
    The revision of American (US) spelling was based around this (along with helping to carve a new national identity seperate to that of Britain), making spelling represent pronunciation more clearly.

    Even Shakespeare was responsible for introducing many new words into the English language, such as - 'obscene', accomodation' and 'laughable', words we couldn't imagine not using these days.
    Again, I never said that language could not change! Never!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    New words, new spellings and new variations on words are constantly arising especially in our age. Standards are fastly becoming obsolete, words like 'oxen' are becoming a thing of the past and 'oxes' is becoming more common. Platypii and virii are becoming platypuses and viruses.
    Just as English lost its inflivted endings and words like stana became 'stones' and egges became 'eggs', English also began to standardise its many plural forms into a single form with many of the Germanic and Latin plural forms becoming obsolete and they do until today (as in oxen (germanic) and virii (latin)).
    I agree. But this was never my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    I'm sure you can understand a bit about language change, you'd be well aware of many examples that you would use yourself. Just as these changes continue to take place, the case of 'alot' over 'a lot' is occuring nowadays. Unfortunately or language purists the trends all indicate that in time 'alot' will be an equal standard along with 'a lot', however this is one of the rare cases where I am well behind the inclusion of the dear term into our vocabulary.
    Habibi, not only do I understand , but I agree 100%!!! But this was never my argument If the words a lot eventually becomes alot and enters the dictionaries, fine, go ahead and use this instead.

    I am just saying, until then, we should all be using a lot

    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    As for then/than, and the others I agree without doubt that the standard and non-standard are clear and should always be obeyed...
    Agreed upon again

    And the "standard" in the case of the words "a lot", is "a lot"

    Where else on earth does the spelling of the words a lot exist as alot to mean "to a very great degree or extent" as a "standard"?

    And finally Habibi Akhee, I am still waiting for your answer about when egges was last used, according to you?



    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    I never said that I disagree with words changing. I have always stated that I stand for using correct English when we are made aware of it and use it. That is all!
    Perhaps I didn't demonstrate how the views on language change relate to the use of 'alot'.

    The crux of the issue is exactly what makes any usage the 'standard' usage.
    There are many words and examples which to this day are considered standard but are ignored by 99% of people.
    At what point does a word go from being non-standard to standard? When did 'another' become right and 'an other' become wrong?
    There is no correct answer.
    Just in the case of alot, there is currently nobody who can rightfully say it is baseless and nobody who can rightfully say it is correct, it is still at the point where it is in transition from being obscure to becoming equally accepted. In a matter of decades it could go to becoming the standard for all we know.

    I'm sure you should understand what I mean now about language change and how it applies to words such as 'alot' where it is not according to some incorrect whereas to others it is.

    When was egges last used? No idea, again there is no clear answer. Was it once the standard? Sure it was, but not any more...
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #33
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    I just posted the question regarding a lot vs alot in the UE (Using English) forum here
    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #34
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    In the mean time, here is a thread I came across in the UE forums site that explains if alot is correct or not:

    alot of...

    Seems that your argument that:
    Just in the case of alot, there is currently nobody who can rightfully say it is baseless and nobody who can rightfully say it is correct, it is still at the point where it is in transition from being obscure to becoming equally accepted.
    doesn't hold true Habibi
    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Although those who answered you may fall into the class of language purists and would do well to get a job in the Académie today, they have however shown exactly what I am presenting -

    It is a mistake that is very common, however, in colloquial contexts; if I were a linguist in the 22nd century, it seems to me quite possible that my doctoral thesis might track the increasing acceptability of "alot" in a range of contexts starting as a colloquialism in the second half of the 20th century. Today, however, it's just a mistake; a lot of words started life as simple mistakes.
    Bob here accepts that the word is used as a colloquialism, and accepts hat ultimately it will most likely sneak its way in.
    Thats what I have been saying to you.
    Although a word is not yet standard, and in this definition a word only falls into 2 categories - standard or non-standard, and nothing in between, its usage reflects its true status on how accepted it is and how long until it becomes a standard eventually.
    Some words today I can almost guarantee you no one at all uses them in their standard form, yet they still appear in the dictionaries and encyclopedias (or encyclopædias or encyclopaedias if you're in the UK).

    For example if I was writing an essay for at university, there is no way I would write alot, I'd definitely choose the proper term. However in everyday speech, just as I don't speak with the Queen's English or the Received Prononciation, similarly I don't always necessarily write according to the rules set down by the Oxford Concise Dictionary!
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #36
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Mecca Cola View Post
    Although those who answered you may fall into the class of language purists and would do well to get a job in the Académie today, they have however shown exactly what I am presenting -

    Bob here accepts that the word is used as a colloquialism, and accepts hat ultimately it will most likely sneak its way in.
    Thats what I have been saying to you.
    Although a word is not yet standard, and in this definition a word only falls into 2 categories - standard or non-standard, and nothing in between, its usage reflects its true status on how accepted it is and how long until it becomes a standard eventually.
    Some words today I can almost guarantee you no one at all uses them in their standard form, yet they still appear in the dictionaries and encyclopedias (or encyclopædias or encyclopaedias if you're in the UK).

    For example if I was writing an essay for at university, there is no way I would write alot, I'd definitely choose the proper term. However in everyday speech, just as I don't speak with the Queen's English or the Received Prononciation, similarly I don't always necessarily write according to the rules set down by the Oxford Concise Dictionary!
    Habibi Mecca Cola,

    I see your argument. You have elaborated your stance much more clearly in your most recent post

    However, as a Muslim, I believe that we should uphold the highest standards of values, and correctness.

    At the current time, I believe that people (especially Muslims) that are capable of doing so, should perform at their best, at all times. W'Allaahu A`lam.

    A person as blessed by Allaah `Azza wa Jall as yourself Habibi in the field of linguistics, should uphold what is considered the correct way during their whole life, and not just during certain times. As I would consider you a leader amongst most of us here, if not all of us, you should lead by example. Because even if you do not intend it to be, people will look up to you Habibi.

    Sorry for the unsightly proverb, but in Turkish we have a saying, which roughly translates to (substantially toned down):

    - If the Imaam breaks wind, his congregation will produce fecal matter.

    You get the drift yeah?

    Having had said this, I am open to any constructive criticism. May Allaah shower His Blessings upon all those that correct me with kindness, aameen.

    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #37
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    Re-read BobK's quote below and see that his thesis is that people may use this approximately 500 years or later!

    it seems to me quite possible that my doctoral thesis might track the increasing acceptability of "alot" in a range of contexts starting as a colloquialism in the second half of the 20th century. Today, however, it's just a mistake; . . .
    Yes, I know, he finished off his statement with:
    . . . a lot of words started life as simple mistakes.
    However, within the context of what he was saying, the last line pales in relevance in regards to what I have been advocating all along.
    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
    Add there/their/they're to the list 
    #38
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Dharr View Post
    Add there/their/they're to the list.
    There:

    Adverb: there dhehr

    1. In or at that place
    "they have lived there for years"; "it's not there"; "that man there"
    2. In that matter
    "I agree with you there"
    3. To or toward that place; away from the speaker
    "go there around noon!"

    Noun: there dhehr
    1. A location other than here; that place
    "you can take it from there"

    ---o---o---o---

    Their:

    Pronoun: their
    dhehr

    1. Of them or themselves
    2. His or her, as in "someone hit their head"

    ---o---o---o---

    They're:

    Contraction: they're
    dhehr

    1. They are

    Meanings of the words courtesy of WordWeb 5 the Free Dictionary and Thesaurus
    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
    Inquire vs. Enquire 
    #39
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    Inquire vs. Enquire

    . . .
    Inquire:

    Verb: inquire in'kwI(u)r

    1. Inquire about
    2. Have a wish or desire to know something
    3. Conduct an inquiry or investigation of
    "inquire into the disappearance of the rich old lady"

    vs.

    Enquire:

    Verb: enquire en'kwI(u)r

    1. Inquire about
    2. Conduct an inquiry or investigation of
    3. Have a wish or desire to know something

    Meanings of the words courtesy of WordWeb 5 the Free Dictionary and Thesaurus
    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
    Disorganised vs. Unorganised 
    #40
    eXposingYou isa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Between Here & There
    Posts
    6,259
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    . . .

    Disorganised vs. Unorganised

    . . .
    Disorganised:

    Adjective: disorganised
    1. Lacking order or methodical arrangement or function
    "a disorganised enterprise"; "a thousand pages of muddy and disorganised prose"; "she was too disorganised to be an agreeable roommate"

    Verb: disorganise dis'orgu`nIz
    1. Remove the organization from

    vs.

    Unorganised:

    Adjective unorganised
    1. Not having or belonging to a structured whole
    "unorganised territories lack a formal government"
    2. Not affiliated in a trade union

    Meanings of the words courtesy of WordWeb 5 the Free Dictionary and Thesaurus
    My twin boys were severely burnt in a garage fire.
    Make du`aa that the one that survived recovers a complete recovery.

    - - -
    "Do not argue with the people of knowledge for you will only cause them to hate you.
    And do not argue with an ignorant person because they may harm you..."

    Tirmidhi
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •