"It is a parent that"...should be apparent. Unless the topic is parenting.
"Waiting with baited breathe"...should be bated, as in reduced. Unless you are fishing with your mouth.
"Statue of limitations"...should be statute. Unless this is a reference to the expression of a human condition through sculpture.
"Given free reign"...should be rein, as in horse reins. Unless you have a kingdom to liberate.
"Nip it in the butt"...should be bud, as in a plant. Unless you want to chew on someone's rear end (which none of us want to hear about).
"No holes barred"...should be holds. Let's not go there.
LOL love all of these
But you don't wait with bated or baited breathe, you wait with bated breath. "Breathe" rhymes with "seethe," not to be confused with "seeth," which might or might not be a two-syllable elizabethan form of the verb
to see.
I always thought that "could of" and "could have" can both be used.
They can be, but one of them is wrong.
Unless it's vice versa. Just no witches witch. (What's you're point, other wise?)
Lose - we lost the game
Loose - my pants are loose since I lost weight
Canada geese, not Canadian geese
Reading about the Miracle on the Hudson taught me that last one
Ok theres only one poster who ever wrote the above repeatedly. I won't embarrass her by singling her out.
PatsFanTerryG, I remember
her. Crap, too soon?
Has PFiVA cosigned this yet?
Next time @ me bro
I said "McDaniel" for a long time because I overgeneralized "Samuel." It's like when a toddler learns that it's incorrect to drop the "g" from "running," and ends up talking about opening the curtings.
Whoever did that hole paragraph-long one, that was the best thing evah. I don't know what else I can add to the Patsfans style sheet except...
Did anybody get "one and the same" (correct), not "one
in the same"?
Also, anything here we're due-ing:
Even reputable websites have been caught screwing up these idioms, which spell check often doesn't find.
www.inc.com
Stop adding "what has been" or "what was" or "what is" to phrases in sportswriting. You notice nobody ever wrote "In what was a frank exchange of views, Putin and Xi met for three hours yesterday." (They
might write, "In what has been described as a frank exchange of views..." That's because the phrase has a purpose there. It means "somebody said it," not "it happened." You don't add to something happening by saying it was "what was" X, Y, or Z. These phrases almost never add anything. "In a closely contested game, the defense was the difference" is fine. You don't need to say "In what was a closely contested game," and so on.
"He ran for 112 yards," not "He ran for 112-yards."
(You use the hyphen to put the two together as a compound modifier. "He had a 112-yard game.")
This one's more of a stupid terminology evolution complaint. It was fine when we had a corps of a given position (which nobody understood). Now they have to be in a room. There's a wide receivers room and a quarterbacks room and a running backs room... by the way, I made them all plural but not possessive, but who cares, it's not like there's some freaking Big Brother House of football for every team, where you check in on the Quarterbacks Room, and Mac is talking into the Mac Cam (oh snap, and Cam is talking into the Cam Cam...) I got lost. Anyway I hate the "rooms"
Ima defend "Ima" as predictive of possible linguistic change, in that it conserves syllables and breath without any loss of syntactic value. Call me in 300 years.
Use commas to achieve your grammatical purpose. You can usually tell if you need one by asking whether they make a difference. "Let's Eat, Grandma!" is a feel good holiday movie, "Let's Eat Grandma!" might not be.
It turns out it's actually Eric Bicuriouseniemy
Mominem is acceptable in reference to Debbie Mathers. Mather? I think Mathers.
And only for this forum's style sheet...
It's ex-Patriot, not expatriate.
This post has been checked by Grammatica™, the grammar software that breaks after celebrating that it completed the first page of the selected text. 
