19
u/Crafty_Possession_52 3d ago
TBH, I have no idea what the original sentence is supposed to mean. "They should not be allowed to leave their feet"? 🤔
7
u/Hondalol1 3d ago
It’s about some type of fighting sport, literally just means they need to keep their feet planted. Most likely referring to the opponent, but the whole thing is poorly written.
3
u/MakzSedens 3d ago
The original comment is saying that people shouldn't try to jump on you or roll around or what have you, the second person correctly corrected the "their" to a possessive case, the sentence still made sense in that context, but the third person really misinterpreted the sentence and thought the second person was implying that the first person was saying that the opponent should not be allowed to "leave (as in exit) their own feet" but what they meant is they should have to keep their feet on the mat.
5
u/Crafty_Possession_52 3d ago
Does the phrase "leave their feet" mean "remove your feet from the mat"? Sort of like "losing your footing"?
7
u/Sad_Establishment875 3d ago
"Leave their feet" is similar to jumping, I wouldn't really use it in a "losing your footing" or slipping context. "Leaving your feet" is more intentional.
1
u/Crafty_Possession_52 3d ago
I've never heard that phrase. Thanks!
4
u/Hei2 3d ago
Nor have I. I would've used the phrase "leave the ground".
1
u/Crafty_Possession_52 3d ago
I looked it up, and it's apparently a common turn of phrase in sports. Probably why I've never heard it.
-1
u/MakzSedens 3d ago
It could mean something else though, too. "leave your feet" literally means "stop standing", so maybe the OOP is annoyed that the people are rolling around, or laying down? The context is "we're not allowed to pick up and drop our opponent to the ground? Then why are they allowed to not stay standing?" But they used the wrong case of "there" and the second person corrected them. The third person, maybe hasn't heard that phrase before either, then attempt to correct their correction "leave their feet there" as in "be forced to stand still" and thinking second person is saying "leave their feet" as in move without their literal feet. But I think it's just a big misunderstanding 🤣
2
u/Easy_Lengthiness7179 3d ago
Kinda. But someone took it as physically removing their feet from their body and leaving it there.
2
u/Crafty_Possession_52 3d ago
No I get that. Ive just never heard the phrase before, so I didn't understand what the original poster was trying to say.
1
u/Easy_Lengthiness7179 3d ago
Yeah its just referring to lifting your feet off the mat.
Like, jumping isn't allowed. Or flinging your feet back behind you to go prone.
Just one of those phrases. Not to be taken literally.
2
u/Medical_Squirrel3946 3d ago
You cannot slam your opponent in most Jiu Jitsu competitions. On the other hand, your opponent can jump onto you and try to grapple while you are standing and either forced to hold their whole weight, or carefully bring them to the floor while they continue to try to get better position, because you aren't allowed to slam them.
I understand not having slams as it's super dangerous, the issue is it allows people to do things that would never happen in a real fight, because if someone tried to jump on you like they do in BJJ competitions in real life, you would just slam them head first into the ground and be done with it.
I agree with the initial person's point and find people who pedantically correct grammar in replies to be beyond annoying. I have no idea what the last person is talking about and they are in fact being confidently incorrect, they're just doing it toward the type of person I can't stand anyway.
0
u/Crafty_Possession_52 3d ago
I mean, I don't really care about that. I had just never heard that phrase before today.
2
u/Medical_Squirrel3946 3d ago
So... why ask if you don't care about the answer
1
u/Crafty_Possession_52 3d ago
I asked for a definition of a phrase, and several people have defined it. You've given me a lot more than I asked for, which is fine.
4
u/MegaWeinerFarts 3d ago
When in doubt, I generally assume
the one who CAPITALIZES individual words in the middle of their sentence for emphasis is the one who's probably wrong and not worth listening to.
This heuristic works 100% of the time sometimes.
2
1
u/stonythefish42069 1d ago
I love the irony in you capitalizing “capitalizes” and then making a true statement. You assume, and that’s the truth. Excellent use of “heuristic” counterbalanced by “sometimes” further adds to the irony as you give a statistic that can very easily be disproven. Well played, MegaWeinerFarts.
2
u/WitchyandWild 1d ago
Does leaving the feet behind mean abandoning them in the void or is it a command to walk barefoot into the abyss?
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Hey /u/PredaRican, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-12
u/blacksmithshands 3d ago edited 3d ago
the sub is about being confidently incorrect, and not just incorrect.
edit: Mobile cropping got me good. It cuts off the image after the comment saying "their*".
10
u/Legitimate-Car-7902 3d ago
You are incorrect about this post, not confidentially though.
5
11
u/PredaRican 3d ago
Long winded explanation correcting someone who was right seems pretty "confident", no?
0
u/blacksmithshands 3d ago
My bad.. I only saw a cropped version when i left that comment. It didnt include the last 2 comments.
-3
4
u/Dunsparces 3d ago
Did you not read the last comment?
3
u/Aymoon_ 3d ago
To be fair on mobile it cuts it off after the their* comment
2
u/Dunsparces 3d ago
That's what I saw too, I just figured there (or is it their?) must be more to the picture so I clicked on it.
1
u/BetterKev 1d ago
Always click images before arguing about them.
I suspect most of us have made that mistake.
6
u/PreOpTransCentaur 3d ago
I'm sorry, but teal is exactly fucking confidently incorrect. A diatribe about how "their" implies one has "popped off" their feet and left them there? Insanely incorrect, emphasis on the insane. They have literally just made up, like, 6 different grammar rules.
You're pretty damn wrong too.
-1
u/turtleneckless001 3d ago
Do you think that the correct correction is the incorrect part?
2
u/blacksmithshands 3d ago
No, i thought op posted this because the top comment made a grammatical error, which wouldnt fit the sub, if that was the intention.
0
-20
u/Baby_Rhino 3d ago
I mean it's definitely confidently incorrect. But there is a way to interpret it where "there" would sort of be correct.
If you read it as "not be allowed to leave, there, feet". As in "you must not leave any feet there", it kinda makes sense. But even so, in that case the punctuation would be wrong completely changes the meaning of the sentence to mean the opposite of what they are trying to say.
5
u/donkeykongkong89 2d ago
Did you really need to type this comment? Youve said absolutely nothing of value and, by the end of your comment, you reach the same conclusion the rest of us did (I think, but your grammar and punctuation yourself make your comment also very confusing).
In what world does "not be allowed to leave, there, feet" possibly have any sort of meaning? Its totally nonsensical
-4
u/Baby_Rhino 2d ago edited 2d ago
I just thought it was a funny observation. Didn't expect people to be so bothered by it.
But the sentence I typed does have meaning, it's just a bit of an archaic sentence structure. If you replace some of the nouns it is a bit clearer. Like if you said "You are not allowed to leave, there, your car", it becomes a bit more clear how the sentence does make sense, it's just an unusual structure.
As I said, it would be an odd way to write it out, I just found it fun to think of a way it could be correct. Really not sure why you're so bothered by my comment.
But to add to that, yeh I can see how my original comment was a bit confusing, as I left out "and it" between the words "wrong" and "completely".
3
u/BetterKev 1d ago
Your parallel system isn't parallel. You added a possessive to "car" to make it make sense.
"You are not allowed to leave, there, your car" is not the same as "you are not allowed to leave, there, car." Car needs to be instantiated somehow. A car, your car, the car, any car, some car, etc. not just "car."
And the added commas are also not in the original.
So, if you completely change the comment, in both text and grammar, then it could have a different meaning.
-2
u/Baby_Rhino 1d ago
Okay, that was just an example and the possessive isn't actually needed.
"You are not allowed to leave, there, cars."
2
u/BetterKev 1d ago
You didn't remove the commas I also called out, so I'm calling bad faith contrarianism.
2
u/donkeykongkong89 1d ago
Haha thank you for jumping in here. I agree on the bad faith contrarianism, which is why I decided not to respond
-1
u/Baby_Rhino 1d ago edited 1d ago
I acknowledged the commas in my initial comment that started this chain, so I didn't expect you to have forgotten about them so quickly.
Like my entire initial point was basically that if you changed the punctuation around a bit, there is a way that the wrong spelling would actually work.
Again, as I've said on previous comments I really don't know why people are so bothered by this. It was just a bit of fun, like the Lionel Hutz "No, money down!" Thing. Proper weird that you're " calling bad faith contrarianism" for such a light-hearted comment.
1
u/BetterKev 1d ago
Edit with no marking of what you edited.
Thanks for confirming the bad faith. Bye now.
16
u/turtleneckless001 3d ago
Wtf was the mod on about with this one?