I think either a) Beckett will leave on her own or b) she brings Castle in to help like he's always helped her in the past and that doesn't fly with her superiors who wonder 'this woman can't work without her writer boyfriend' and she's basically let go. or c) She works for them sort of as a 'reserve' agent or something and goes back to NYPD. I really don't think they'd do anything to potentially kill Castle this isn't a JJ Abrams show.
Loved the answer to the proposal and how it was done.. so much fun but a few moments later it all seemed brushed asides to focus on her new career Well.. i guess her Fed career won't last for long. She'll be long gone back to NYC before sweeps because she either misses the smaller scale of her cases, her friends/colleagues or something else. She got what she wanted.. she gave it a shot, found out it's not what she wanted and it's all good. Castle forcing her to stay in some way would have been disastrous but once she got it out of her system they can return to business as usual and prepare for the wedding.
Well, there's evolution, and there's evil mutant monsters that should never have existed. Like "irregardless," or "prejudism", or using an apostrophe to pluralize.
On the other hand, even dictionaries have given up and begun accepting "literally" as a synonym for "the exact opposite of literally."
Watched it last night and liked it quite a bit. It really felt like a throwback to some of their earlier adventures.
Esp. when it comes to English, though, it really doesn't make sense to meter the evolution of the language by looking at *spelling*, considering spoken English, no matter how proper, has already evolved several hundred years beyond written English. In the 21st century, it doesn't really matter how modern/innovative your brand of English is: spelling rules will be a completely arbitrary set of rules that everybody has to learn. If somebody hasn't learned them, the implication for me is that said person just isn't that big on learning. So there's a definite contrast here between non-standard grammatical constructions ("President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I."), non-standard use of words ("My head literally exploded."), and non-standard pronunciations ("'ello, my dear!") on the one hand, and non-standard spellings on the other. Grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation are always on the move, English spelling rules haven't budged in centuries.
Ah, but Castle is not a linguist, he's a professional writer. Trust me, as someone who has spent much of his adult life editing and proofreading manuscripts and page proofs . . . we take spelling very seriously. It's an occupational hazard. I cringe if I find a misspelled word in a restaurant menu. (Don't get me started on "sweat and sour soup.") And have been known to keep myself awake in meetings by proofreading copy . . . . And whatever writer wrote that line clearly knew how much it would rankle Castle!
I teach linguistics at university, and I can guarantee that my department would not hire anyone that cannot spell. Professional linguists and other lovers of language *will* often be at loggerheads over what it means, for example, when President Obama says "President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I" in a speech (authentic example: that actually upset my mother). "Amateur lovers" might proclaim such things as signs of the coming apocalypse, while professional linguists will say "meh, languages change", and point out that this particular change to English grammar was somewhere between predictable and inevitable. (Which is not to say that we might not cringe a bit inside when hearing people use grammatical constructions that're gaining foothold, but that are not part of our individual grammars.) Non-professional lovers of language looks at such changes and cite them as proof that their beloved language is in disrepair, and that it has decayed from an older, more pure state. Linguists will point out that as long as there's been literacy, there've been people believing just this. (I can enthusiastically recommend "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher to anyone interested in this subject matter. One chapter's dedicated to such beliefs: he gives a quote stating that today's English is completely decayed, a shadow of its former glory .. and then goes and finds what lovers of English were saying about English in those alleged glory days: the very same thing. He successfully goes back centuries like this.) But, not everything that applies to languages applies to *language norms*, as the Standard Englishes are. Language norms aren't supposed to perfectly match people's vernaculars (and incidentally, the older they get, the further they move away from how people actually speak). They're nothing but, shall we say, agreements between a large group of people as to how one renders an acceptable middle ground between vernaculars in writing. If someone cannot, or will not, comply with such an "agreement", the message isn't a good one. In summation: In my opinion, intrinsical took a valid lesson from his linguistics training, but applied it where it shouldn't be applied. You can be a linguist, and still get annoyed when people mix up "there", "they're" and "their". (They're pronounced the same by *all* English speakers. Spelling them all the same doesn't make your English more evolved, it just shows that you're unaware of the underlying difference between them.)
^^ I went to a restaurant that had so many misspellings, it became a game for us to find them all. English majors that we were... lol My husband and I were guessing it'd be a few episodes and they'd be back in NYC.
Plus, like I was saying, the point of the joke was not that everybody should care about spelling, but that this was the wrong thing to say to somebody, like Castle, who makes a living by writing. The gag wouldn't have worked if it been directed at Beckett or Esposito or whomever . . . it was all about pushing Castle's buttons.
If you actually spell "you" what you get is.... mend a broken heart have any puddling (What the fuck?!) get hiv And my favorite... increase potential energy So spelling is a little important, but I can't spell at all. Thankfully god created spell check.
^I'm sorry, I don't understand your post at all. If you actually spell "you" in what context? What you get from what?
^Uhh, no, because your quote box is completely empty. And I followed the link to the post you were quoting, and even with that context, I still have no clue what your post means.
The box shows two screenshots of Google searches.. one shows "how can u.." and then various suggestions like ".. get mono/last longer in bed/get herpes" etc. Searches with "how can you" yield things like " impact the course of history/affect society/make a difference/buy stock" etc. Draw whatever conclusions you want