spelling mistake

[student81]

Hi,

gesucht wird "one spelling mistake"

Hab ne Idee und würde es gerne von euch bestätigt wissen.




In principal I agree that illegal immigration must be curbed.

richtig: legal


Ich bin mir unsicher, weil man ja theoretisch auch illegale Immigration einschränken kann. Einen anderen Fehler seh ich nicht.

Danke für eure Hilfe!

[tiorthan]

The principal will certainly be grateful if you would not agree in him but in principle.

[Keswick (Contributor)]

Jetzt hab ich deinen Beitrag aber 2x gelesen, tiorthan, um zu wissen was du meinst .

In principle I agree that illegal immigration must be curbed.

[Noctivagus]

That's a brilliant idea actually...i mean: Lots of countries struggle with illegal immigration, and there seems to be no effective solution. However, if we curb legal immigration, let's say to about 0 percent, then that would be a major cutback to the overall number of immigrants, wouldn't it?

[Keswick (Contributor)]

Curb legal immigration rather than illegal immigration? What's the point? If you curb legal immigration to 0, lots of businesses will certainly suffer. You know I did not come to this country to sit on my behind all day and to live on the dole. I am working here, using my language and business skills which support the international company that I am working for. 50% of the people working this company are legal immigrants and if you got rid of them this company would go bust. I don't mean to be disrespectful but there are jobs in this country that have to be done by native speakers. In fact there are lots of companies in the world that rely on native speakers for services such as Call Centres, Accountants, Client Services, Language Recruitment, Payroll etc etc.

So curbing legal immigration to cut overall immigration because you can't solve the "illegal immigration" issue is certainly no solution. There are other options that should be taken into consideration before taking such a radical step.

[Noctivagus]

i assumed people would be able to tell that what i wrote was meant as satire, based on the fact that the original question asked for a "spelling mistake" and that then changing "illegal" to "legal" is a political mistake and has nothing to do with false spelling, and also doesnt show much thinking on the part of the person asking the question...

please read it with a sarcastic undertone, and im sorry if i hurt anyones feelings.

and by the way, i worked in the uk for quite a while myself, so im not going out badmouthing others who do too.....

[Keswick (Contributor)]

I assumed people would be able to tell that what I wrote was meant as satire, based on the fact that the original question asked for a "spelling mistake" and that then changing "illegal" to "legal" which is a political mistake and has nothing to do with false spelling, and also doesn't show much thinking on the part of the person asking the question...

Please read it with a sarcastic undertone, and I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.

And by the way, I worked in the UK for quite a while myself, so I'm not going out badmouthing others who do too.....

Sorry, the irony definitely did not come across as such. Might be worth using emoticons, which can support sarsasm in written speech.

[Noctivagus]

You might enjoy correcting peoples' "mistakes", but please also be aware that your corrections contained nothing new for me, and are therefor useless, unless someone else browses around in this forum to learn...

I dont see why "which" would be necessary in the case where you inserted it. In fact it sounds ugly, and may even be ungrammatical there.....

[Keswick (Contributor)]

You might enjoy correcting people's "mistakes", but please also be aware that your corrections contained nothing new for me, and are therefore useless, unless someone else browses around in this forum to learn...

I don't see why "which" would be necessary in the case where you inserted it. In fact it sounds ugly, and may even be ungrammatical there.....

Oh yes, actually I love correcting other people's mistakes because I have nothing else to do.. that was irony in case it did not come across as such. I am correcting your mistakes because this is not the chatterbox. And it might surprise you but there are indeed people here who want to learn English. And I think as long as your posts contain grammatical mistakes / spelling mistakes my corrections are certainly helpful. Even for you. If you think you don't need corrections .. good for you.


And I am afraid that inserting "which" where I have inserted it is correct. You might no like it and it might sound wrong in your ears but it is correct.

Also, I don't see the point of you being rude simply because I have corrected your obvious mistakes.

Have a good day.

[tiorthan]

Ich kann mich irren, aber ich finde die Variante ohne "which" und die Variante mit beide nicht so ganz korrekt. Der Satz ohne passt mit dem "that then" nicht so recht zur Einleitung und in dem Satz mit "which" ist entweder das "that then" zu viel oder es fehlt hintendran irgendwas.

Ich empfinde "false spelling" übrigens als falsch.

[CruxClaire]

And I am afraid that inserting "which" where I have inserted it is correct. You might not like it and it might sound wrong in your ears but it is correct.

Also, I don't see the point of you being rude simply because I have corrected your obvious mistakes.

Have a good day.

Tut mir leid....ich musste. Golden opportunity. xD

As a native English speaker, I personally applaud you for actually caring. I'm always impressed by the effort so many people put into learning our language, whereas here in America, foreign language isn't emphasized as something important that one should care about.

[Keswick (Contributor)]

Tut mir leid....ich musste. Golden opportunity. xD

That's quite alright Claire! Mistakes should always be corrected. Thank you!

[guest-07-21]

Hi! I'd say which is not correct in this content. Let's split this up:

I assumed people would be able to tell that what I wrote was meant as satire, based on the fact that the original question asked for a "spelling mistake". Full stop.

and that then Let's say these are connectors so we can leave them out for now.


Changing "illegal" to "legal" (subject) which is a political mistake and has nothing to do with false spelling and also doesn't show much thinking on the part of the person asking the question... The which makes this whole green construction a relative clause leaving the question about the predicate unanswered. It should follow now but the sentence is obviously over. If you leave out which it should make sense again:

Changing "illegal" to "legal" is (predicate) a political mistake and has nothing to do with false spelling and also doesn't show much thinking on the part of the person asking the question.


Best regards