Talk:Might Could
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(Whoa there.) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::::Woah woah woah, this was a question about the scope of the page, not a deletion discussion... There's absolutely no reason to delete. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | ::::Woah woah woah, this was a question about the scope of the page, not a deletion discussion... There's absolutely no reason to delete. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::Chill, people. I was just saying that, like [[Be's]], this follows the "three times" running gag rule, and that DPE is to document all that other crap. {{User:Dr._Clash/sig}} 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | :::::Chill, people. I was just saying that, like [[Be's]], this follows the "three times" running gag rule, and that DPE is to document all that other crap. {{User:Dr._Clash/sig}} 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::You're missing my point. This page is documenting usage of a specific double modal. I'm saying we should focus on the page on the usages of double modals in general, not just specifically "might could." -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.171|132.183.151.171]] 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:42, 9 February 2009
Scope
Should the name/scope of this page be tweaked? For example, the best caper example is actually a quadruple modal including things other than might and could -132.183.151.171 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's what Deliberately Poor English is for. This is just to document a specific bad grammarism that's appeared a noteble amount of times.
Dr. Clash 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a shorter section of Engrish. Delete. — MichaelXX2
22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a worthy article, since it is a bit peculiar construction, and repeated multiple times, unlike random malapropisms that are in Engrish. Keep wbwolf (t | ed) 22:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Woah woah woah, this was a question about the scope of the page, not a deletion discussion... There's absolutely no reason to delete. — Defender1031*Talk 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Chill, people. I was just saying that, like Be's, this follows the "three times" running gag rule, and that DPE is to document all that other crap.
Dr. Clash 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. This page is documenting usage of a specific double modal. I'm saying we should focus on the page on the usages of double modals in general, not just specifically "might could." -132.183.151.171 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Chill, people. I was just saying that, like Be's, this follows the "three times" running gag rule, and that DPE is to document all that other crap.
Dr. Clash 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Woah woah woah, this was a question about the scope of the page, not a deletion discussion... There's absolutely no reason to delete. — Defender1031*Talk 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a worthy article, since it is a bit peculiar construction, and repeated multiple times, unlike random malapropisms that are in Engrish. Keep wbwolf (t | ed) 22:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a shorter section of Engrish. Delete. — MichaelXX2
