Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lucid wrote:To add to this, I have also noticed a large number of people spelling Turret wrong

they tend to put Turrent . . . its Turret people

urbandictionary wrote:A common misspelling of the word "turret," usually made by people with a fourth-grade education.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turrent


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Bringer wrote:emporer has 317,000 results
emperor has 54,000 results

What search engine did you use? Did you type emperor correctly?

Re: the tree in the terrain set.

He's called Bob.
Formally known as Robert the Spruce.

Zefig wrote:Rogue/Rouge is another bad one too. Pretty prominent, and just as glaring.

Don't knock it, I've bagged several "Rouge Trader" bargains on eBay, long may it continue!

Similarly, even eBay suffers from dreadful spelling. Simply type "Warhammer" into the search and check the catagories...

Turrent:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/turrent

Some of these aren't actually errors, per say ...

As long as you are pointing per se at the porcelain it won't really matter.

Necroagogo wrote:Some of these aren't actually errors, per say ...

Unlike "Per say", which is another one that gets me.

It's Per se. "In itself".

Get it right or GTFO.

Think Necro was being playful with the spelling

This thread makes me lol. Bwahahahahahahaah!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think Necro was being playful with the spelling

Edit: left off the smilies.

The one that really gets my goat is 'sponsoons'. sponson does not rhyme with platoon. It rhymes with johnson. And please don't spell things phonetically if you've only heard them in real life. Google it first.

Platoon rhymes with spittoon, but it doesn't go ding

Sponsoon. vb. To be inundated by a deluge of advertising.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Similarly, even eBay suffers from dreadful spelling. Simply type "Warhammer" into the search and check the catagories...

You're going to kick yourself... ... categories

this thread stinks of d-baggery.

Hey, better to vent in here than to be running around like a grammar nazi, calling everyone out in whatever particular thread. It'd just be a losing battle.

to all those who spell Emperor wrong, here is the correct spelling:

EMPRAH!

Spontoon.

BloodQuest wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Similarly, even eBay suffers from dreadful spelling. Simply type "Warhammer" into the search and check the catagories...

You're going to kick yourself... ... categories

Noooo!!!!

Actually, the real blind spot I have is "experiance", I can't seem to shake off spelling it that way instead of the correct "experience".

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Platoon rhymes with spittoon, but it doesn't go ding

Wait, how are people mispronouncing platoon?

A weird one I've seen is 'skellington' instead of 'skeleton'. It's rather cute, and I know at least one chap (from the North in England) who says it this way.

A couple of things we all do that are actually incorrect:

'Shoulder pads' - we all use this to mean the armoured piece that protects the shoulder. It's not a pad at all, of course; it's actually a pauldron, but I doubt anyone is going to start using that term.

'Ordinance' - I think someone else mentioned this; it's a common mis-spelling. An 'ordinance' is a statute; the correct term in WH40k is 'ordnance'.

'Metagame' - essentially, the metagame is the broader set of rules/conditions that sit above the rules of the game itself. I know this is a word that's taken on a broader meaning since it was seized upon by wargamers, but it's now used indiscriminately, usually in order to make the writer sound more authoritative than he/she actually is. How many times have you seen the assertion that "this codex changes the metagame" in a BoLS 'article'? In reality, the only changes that the writer is referring to are changes to existing army lists. Arguably the new Dark Eldar codex does actually alter the metagame, because of the way the new Pain rules work, but that's the exception. This is really just a pet peeve, and the overuse of this term isn't that common on Dakka.

Hell, even GW calls them "shoulder pads", though. But yeah, 40k is PAULDRONS!

Sidstyler wrote:Hell, even GW calls them "shoulder pads", though. But yeah, 40k is PAULDRONS!

That sounds like a new insult. This game is pauldrons!

Cavalry and Calvary drive me up a wall. Also supposebly, and rendering claws. It's RENDING for the love of all that is holy!

I admit to much of my grammar being above-average, unless I have seriously miscalculated the average that is...

Nonetheless, for whomever is the true grammar-nazi (or simply smart person) here, I ask you - as an actual question, not a test - what is the plural of Codex?
Is it Codex's? Or Codices? Or both? Or neither? Or is there no such thing as the plural of Codex and there can never be more than one in one place at a time?

This is one that has always bugged me and help would be appreciated. Cheers. x


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and here's a post I saw recently that some of you may enjoy, I've removed much of the name for 'confidentiality purposes'.

Ash___and wrote:A Imperial guardsmen vs Ezekiel the Chief Librarian of the Dark Angels. The Guardsmen one. He was promoted to a hero status.

And also.....

Commissar Yarrick vs a Warlord Titan. He beat the Warlord Titan..... IN COMBAT.

Marneus Calgar vs one of my scout squads. My scout squad owned him, but next turn they were obliterated by vindicators.

2 Necron lords and Night Bringer vs 1 Devastator Sergeant with a power fist. The Devastator passed everything and killed night bringer D: and died next turn from the necron lord. They were locked in combat for 3 turns.....

One of my assault squads vs a 30 death company. I still have no idea how i won that. He had horrendous roles and I saved every single one of them

One of my Captains went into combat with a Daemon Prince. My captain won and then went on to kill an entire Thousand Son's squad.

Well, here's what I found. Dictionary.com lists the plural is codices.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codex
Wikipedia backs this one up (I'm using dictionary as a source here first, shut up)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

But go to Wiktionary, and it gets a little more blurry.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/codex
The English form is either or - Codexes or Codices. The French variation, based on the Latin form, however, lists it as neither! The plural of Codex is, apparently, also Codex. (But it's a different word meaning 'all senses' according to the page) Go to the Latin section, and it's even more confusing - it can be spelled codices, codicum, or codicibus. (Although before you jump down my throat, these are different forms of saying the word in a sentence)

I think the final word is a trip down to Merriam-Webster's site: a search for codex gives us this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/codex

The plural is Codices. And on one last note, both Google and Microsoft Word's spellcheckers list Codexes as an incorrect word.

I like to say codi.

Let's see if spell-check likes codices. It does! I still like to say codi.

I would never really mind how people spell it, I get the point, and it is probably one of the most unknown spellings that I can think of.

I always get Calvary and cavalry mixed X|

Pauldrons are those things that you can put on Terminator models that protect the juncture of the shoulder baffle armour and the cuirass/gorget of Terminator Armour.

Games workshop make up a lot of words, and they are usually encountered first in print. Because of this I have heard a lot of quite crazy pronunciations and missreadings of their background stuff. The few I can remember are...

Rangar in place of Ragnar
Calligar in place of Calgar
World Bearers in place of Word Bearers (At least World Bearers better than Word Eaters)
Sanguinjuice in place of Sanguinius (Also sanguineous)
Khron instead of Khorn
Nurjul instead of Nurgle
I also see Sargent in place of Sergeant quite a lot.

Just Dave wrote:Nonetheless, for whomever is the true grammar-nazi (or simply smart person) here, I ask you - as an actual question, not a test - what is the plural of Codex?
Is it Codex's? Or Codices? Or both? Or neither? Or is there no such thing as the plural of Codex and there can never be more than one in one place at a time?

So far as GW are concerned, 'Codex' is a word in the made-up 'High Gothic' language of Warhammer 40K, that just happens to bear many similarities and shared words with Latin... but it's slightly English-ised Latin, and isn't really intended to follow Latin rules of Grammar.

As such, so far as GW are concerned, the plural of Codex is 'Codexes'... It's what they use pretty consistently, and at least one of the Devs has said as much publicly in the past, including the 'made up language' explanation as to why they don't much care about what a Latin dictionary says it should be.

What the plural should be in actual Latin is only really relevant when you're discussing Latin.