By the way, Whiny, just like methodology, the words utilize, verbalize, etc. are real words with real definitions that are different from use, say, etc. I agree, they may often be pretentiously misused, but that doesn't mean that they can't be used correctly and appropriately.

Robin, it's "could have", not "could of". Occasionally people will misspell it because, in speaking, "could have" is often contracted as "could've", which sounds like "could of", but, of course, isn't.

Certainly "go " is valid, but doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "go to ". I'm not at all familiar with the movie, but is it possible that the title is intentionally bad grammar that means "Leningrad Cowboys go to America", but is conjuring an image of non-Americans (from Leningrad) who, as non-natives, can't speak English very well? A sort of politically incorrect jab at foreigners?

Technically, it's probably incorrect, but I would say it qualifies as an idiom. People say "coupla..." all the time, instead of "couple of...". Is is really that much worse? Little words get elided away all the time. Nearly everyone says "wudja do last night?" instead of "what did you do last night?". There are a thousand other little things like this in English (and every other language).

Antiseptic, since you are in a correcting mood, I just thought I'd point out that Lev Nasalbomb DID say that the British pronunciation is "sha-rahd", so you were incorrect in correcting her.

AO, I think you're right. First of all, while there are many transitive verbs in English, most of them have an intransitive form as well. There are only a few that can only be transitive and wet is not one of them. At least according to dictionary.com and the American Heritage Dictionary, the verb to wet, when used without an object, means to urinate, usually applied to a child or animal, exactly as in this case. Think Betsy-wetsy, the doll that wets. It can also mean to become wet.

Sigpig, are you reading a different post than me? Josh said "While impact as a verb, and a non-literal meaning as synonym of effect..." I completely agree that impact can be synonymous with affect or effect depending on its use as verb or noun, but Josh most definitely and incorrectly referred to the verb, not the noun, in his very first line.

Oh, sorry Dyske, I must have skipped over your parenthetical statement about your dictionary listing "scare" as a feeling as well. My dictionary actually does not have such a listing. I'd be curious to see the exact definition to which you refer.

Dyske, I think maybe you missed CKA3KA's point. You can't compare "I feel scare" to "I feel fear" even if both are nouns. Fear, when used as a noun describes an emotional state, but scare, as a noun, means the actual event that causes one to be scared. It does not mean the state of being scared. Your mistake is when you said "...After all, "scare" is a feeling of fear...". No, the noun scare is not a feeling of fear. It's not a feeling at all. If I may make an analogy, it's like trying to say "I feel hunger" is the same thing as "I feel food". By the way, "I feel scare" is not incorrect because of bad grammar, per se, it's just a non-sequitor.

Josh, I would think that for someone with such a strong opinion, you would know the difference between "effect" and "affect". "Impact" is a synonym for the latter, not the former.
Chris, did you mean "verbifying rather than ""verbing"?
And, Tracy, two wrongs may not make a right, but three rights make a left.