That's fine.


Oh, I forgot. One more rule. No one may ever say "grammarful".

Aw, I was planning on repeating that term over and over until everyone got sick of me and decided to attack.

Well duh. I mean, why else would anyone say it?


Wait, no! Please don't kill me!

Diploming? I'm not certain that's proper grammar, so please be sure not to join your own game.

The grammar is right, but the word is not.

How can the grammar be correct if he is trying to conjugate a noun???

Can't Diplomacy also be a verb?

Such as what Onar? I diplomacy with you to take Sweden? I diplomacied my wife, and she got mad.

v. to diplome

The act of negotiation, usually in relation to the subject of diplomacy.

Warning: this action can be dangerous near wives; it makes them mad.

I found in a different dictionary that it was "to diplomate", but that sounded stupid, so I used this definition.

And yes, that last line, I added myself.

Can you provide any references for that definition? Either one? Looking at online dictionaries, I can't find reference to either of those.

Ah the perils of good grammar. Grammar is never right or wrong, in my opinion. Communication is either understood or it is not. If it is the 'grammar' is right in that setting, if it isn't understood, the 'grammer' is wrong for that setting, even if it is technically correct.

Consider a cook book that calls for eight lambs' eyes. The grammar may be correct because 'eight lambs' is plural but how many eyes would you use in the recipe 8 or 16?

Well, in that case I guess a "lamb's eye" would be a unit itself, so "eight lambs' eyes" would mean eight eyes.

At any rate, it's a dangling modifier. While not necessarily incorrect grammar, it's certainly poor grammar.

Which was my point, grammar can be technically correct yet misunderstood. Eight lambs' eyes must mean 16 eyes.

Eight lambs' eyes is a really disgusting topic. But it still means 16 eyes.

In a recipe it would mean 8 eyes. Recipes give exact measurements.

I see what you're saying, though.

@aoe3rules - so you agree that something can be technically correct but misunderstood? If so grammar can not be 'right' or 'wrong'. It can be an aid to understanding, but getting communication understood is the aim - not good grammar.

@Invicyus - obviously the recipe is inexact if aoe3rules and you would disagree about how many eyes were required.

I can't see the recipe being ruined by putting too little lamb's eyes in.

I don't want to have an argument about a non-existent recipe, but recipes are not written to be ambiguous. Eight lamb's eyes means eight eyes, just like eight eggs means eight eggs.

What part of "I see what you're saying, though" didn't you understand? I just mean that in a recipe it would mean 8 individual eyes.

I forgot another thing. Since so many people seem to think "addicted" is a word, I now have to specifically remind you to never write that.

Dictionary.com says "addict" dates from 1550-60. "Addicted" is just another form of this root word. Why do you say it isn't a word?

If you just mean it's over used I completely agree, but that's a different thing from it not being a word.

Do you have to NMR for one turn if you make a grammatical mistake?

@invictus - the original recipe was "eight lambs' eyes" not "eight lamb's eyes". My whole point was that technically correct grammar could confuse communication. I do understand that you understand what I'm saying.

@Chrispminis - should that be 'too few lamb's eyes' not too little?

@aoe3rules - a word is a word if it is used by one person and understood by another. Addicted is therefore a word.

@TheGhostMaker - no I think we should go N.M.R. just to be perfectly 'correct' :)

In British English it correct not to include the full stops in Initialisms.

@spyman - you are quite correct, perhaps the Brits could NMR and the Americans N.M.R.?