Cheers for that info. I should have paid more attention at school. I thought I had it down pat but sometimes, when I use either to or too in a sentence, it just doesn't look right when combined with the only rule that I remember from about 60 years ago which is that you use "too" if you could replace it with "as well" in your sentence.

As for there and their, I learned it by thinking that "over there" represented a place. "Place" ends with an "e" so you use there which also ends in an e.

As for "your instead of you're" you use "you're" if you could replace it with "You are", so that's easy enough and surely only dumbells would think of writing, "I loosed 5 quid on the horses yesterday."

Hmmm - only dumbells would put five quid on a horse in my opinion!

English grammar is a minefield and isn't helped by predictive text as seen so often here and on Twitter, etc., but all this reminds me of an old joke...

How do you placate a grammar pedant?

There, their, they're

Boom, boom!

Hmmm - only dumbells would put five quid on a horse in my opinion!

Yeah, they usually run faster if there's a jockey sat on their back.

 

 

 

To - Too - Two:

http://btr.michaelkwan.com/2009/08/31/grammar-101-to-too-and-two/

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084646/Apostrophe-catastrophe

www.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo031202/31202-35.htm

A wonderful example, recently erected by our County Council

I kid you not

I carnt berleev oled peepul carnt spel simpul werds proplee.

Thanks very much. I've taken note of those replies and hope that some other folk have done the same.

The thing is, and I don't mean to be insulting here, do the people who make grammatical errors with things like to, two and too realise that they are making a mistake or do they just go blithely along their way? lol

There are  too many RT''ers trying  to make sense of three different  two's /too's/ to's. 

My absolute erroneous grammatical pet hate is:

"would of" instead of "would have"

---

@xtf70 wrote:

A wonderful example, recently erected by our County Council

 

I kid you not

---

It could be correct..

It would depend whether the writer was in effect saying long and short stay parking for shoppers or drawing the attention of shoppers to long and short stay parking.

Shopper's long and short stay.

Shoppers, long and short stay.

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

---

@xtf70 wrote:

A wonderful example, recently erected by our County Council

 

I kid you not

---

It could be correct..

 

It would depend whether the writer was in effect saying long and short stay parking for shoppers or drawing the attention of shoppers to long and short stay parking.

 

Shopper's long and short stay.

 

Shoppers, long and short stay.

---

Wouldn't that be shoppers' not shopper's or would the sign just be for a single shopper?

Good question.

Is the sign to be read by a shopper as an individual or shoppers as a whole?

Regardless of the intention (if that had been thought about) the way the sign is laid out does look a bit odd.

People often say 'should of' instead of 'should have' as well.

I don't like it when someone says 'fed up of' I thought it was 'fed up with'.

drives me mad when people say "there is no cheese" aaarrrrggghhhh!!! it's "there isn't ANY cheese" it's even permeated onto the news now they do it, there is no, ....good grief!!!!

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I am fed up with hearing "we are all in this together" it just makes no sence.

---

Was that intentionally ironic?