quote:

Originally posted by MizDemeanour:
there and their are spelt differently, so its not a matter of a punctuation mark, but even so the correct version is almost always identifiable by the context.

quote:

Originally posted by MizDemeanour:

as a habitual non user of capitals and/or most punctuation (on net fora only i hasten to add), its almost always immaterial whether the apostrophe appears in 'its' as the meaning is usually clear from the context.

there and their are spelt differently, so its not a matter of a punctuation mark, but even so the correct version is almost always identifiable by the context.

teh is usually fingers tripping over the keyboard as opposed to inability to spell...

not that i expect that to satisfy the more exacting FMs, but hey, this is free time not the open university...

quote:

Originally posted by Joobs:

quote:

Originally posted by MizDemeanour:
there and their are spelt differently, so its not a matter of a punctuation mark, but even so the correct version is almost always identifiable by the context.

"their and there" and "lose and loose" are different words. So in using them wrongly it is not a question of poor spelling but of the poor vocabulary of the writer. I agree we can always discern the proper word from the context but that does not excuse the writer.

quote:

Originally posted by kevlar:

quote:

Originally posted by Joobs:

quote:

Originally posted by MizDemeanour:
there and their are spelt differently, so its not a matter of a punctuation mark, but even so the correct version is almost always identifiable by the context.

"their and there" and "lose and loose" are different words. So in using them wrongly it is not a question of poor spelling but of the poor vocabulary of the writer. I agree we can always discern the proper word from the context but that does not excuse the writer.

I am guilty of "there" and "their" all the time. It is not from ignorance, but from utter frustration of some of you're views!