Engrish 101

[Pakhan]

My mistake, wasn't "Robster Roll" was "Monster Robster", love that place

Menu, halfway down right column
http://www.allmenus.com/ny/queens/107815-ginza-japanese-restaurant/menu/

[JBubble]

right

but

the legs of a table would be a location (place) on a thing

oh sweetie

[Popeye the Sailor]

Too bad.  I like to know when I make mistakes.  That's one of the ways I learn.  People who call out others as "know-it-alls" are probably just overcompensating for their own lack of knowledge.

Well, if you really want to believe what any asshole tells you....


It's "to bad" and "now", not "know"-please put your knew nowlegde to work and buy a grammar book 

[herm]

there, their, they're...its not that bad


if you are pointing at something, or somewhere, it's there
if you are pointing at someone, its they're
unless you can't substitute the contraction for they are. then its their.

[trenner]

anyone who actually knows the grammar rule never bothers to point it out, as they just get deemed a know-it-all asshat.

That'd be me.   

Also if you're saying "Look at those tables, their/there legs are crooked" it sounds the same anyway.

The example is also probably a comma splice, which is frowned upon unless your you're French.  Or German.  Or famous.  Or a poet.

[superjohn]

Let's not forget to, two, and too.

Too much Internet will lead to spelling & grammar skills you had when you were two.

[GAAN]

oh sweetie

it's just a question

nobody could answer it when I was 10

and

it seems no one can answer it now

[NAKID]

Uhh, we have. Reading comprehension is lost on you...

[GAAN]

Uhh, we have. Reading comprehension is lost on you...

Not talking to you conspiracy boy

[NAKID]

This is a new thread, it's like a new room with it's own issues...

[superjohn]

Not talking to you conspiracy boy

"Their" is a possessive adjective. It has no connotation of person or thing. In you example

"Look at those tables, their/there legs are crooked."

It would be their because you are describing the legs of the table. "Look at those tables. Their legs are crooked."

Same as if you were describing children with rickets "Look at those kids. Their legs are crooked."

Doesn't matter if it's a place or not. Now if you were to describe a location it would be different. "Put the crooked table legs there", as "there" is an adverb describing the action of "putting"

That good enough?

[stopintime]

In any group of people, there will always be a wisserbesser 

[GAAN]

"Their" is a possessive adjective. It has no connotation of person or thing. In you example

"Look at those tables, their/there legs are crooked."

It would be their because you are describing the legs of the table. "Look at those tables. Their legs are crooked."

Same as if you were describing children with rickets "Look at those kids. Their legs are crooked."

Doesn't matter if it's a place or not. Now if you were to describe a location it would be different. "Put the crooked table legs there", as "there" is an adverb describing the action of "putting"

That good enough?

mostly

I'm was just wondering if a location on a posessive changes the ruling

in summation

i gather that it does not because person place or thing it appears the idea of possession includes location anyway

[GAAN]

This is a new thread, it's like a new room with it's own issues...

Oh no

you will be known as black helocopter man to me for now till the end of time

BHM

[superjohn]

mostly

I'm was just wondering if a location on a posessive changes the ruling

in summation

i gather that it does not because person place or thing it appears the idea of possession includes location anyway

Right. It all boils down to whether you're looking for an adjective or an adverb. Is the word you're modifying, a noun or a verb.