The English Language

THE ICEMAN · **Posted:** Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:20 am

liljol wrote:

IMO, the most godawful, horribly overused word for at least a dozen years or so has been "...dude..." as an exclamation or reply. Despite the fact that a fairly well known Southern California NTN Buzztime player uses it as his handle, the day cannot come too soon for this lil old grumpy bastard for that godawful, horrible usage to die its long overdue death.

Does this mean you'll not allow me to call you "lildude" anymore? :cry:

THE ICEMAN · **Posted:** Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:34 am

Rhino wrote:

Personally I find such predictable rationalizations of sloppy writing to be inverse snobbery - a lamentable recent trend.

There is absolutely no confusion about the meaning of "Little Johnny done so good on his English test, his professor must of been nuts not to given him an A". Judging writing only as communication, that sentence deserves an A too. It doesn't stop the sentence from being incorrect, ugly and indicative of a poor education.

Of course there are examples where breaking the rules of grammar and improper word usage are not only acceptable but even preferable. Mostly of course due to the ignorance of the audience, but still true. Outside statisticians, Latinists and economists, few people don't have to stop and think a bit when told that the data ARE positive, since everyone else expects "is" instead. And only English purists cringe any more when informed none of us are playing trivia right now, even though they are perfectly correct that, as a contraction of "not one", none of us really IS playing trivia right now. You may be uninterested in these rules, but none of us is truly disinterested.

Other rules are starting to sound a little archaic and forced too, even if generally understood to still be correct. I've had people snigger when saying things like "may I borrow a cloth with which to mop up this beer?" even when, according to the claim above, that communicates my desire with no possibility of confusion and so should be completely acceptable. Listeners would apparently much prefer the equally communicative but far less accurately framed "can I borrow (gods help us, even "lend") a cloth to mop up this beer with?".

It's not and never has been about communication or lack of confusion - it's about keeping current with expected manners of speech and word usage shared by the intended audience. There is, I surely hope, not one of you who is ignorant of the meaning and typical usage of the word "lest". Using it as I once did to an educated audience made up of engineers and senior managers, I could be even more confident that it would be universally understood. It also had the advantage of being much shorter than the normal alternative of "so that....should not..." - a positive thing in one prone to verbosity as I am. I think they made fun of me for "lest" for about six years. I took it as a compliment, but it still demonstrates that lack of confusion and communication of ideas are not at the heart of complaints about rigid rules and precise word usage. Part of the reason is inverse snobbery - the feeling that everybody should sound "like normal folk". Part is a genuine inferiority complex from those who know that they lack the comprehension and vocabulary to follow suit, but I suspect most of it is the same kind of modish groupthink that made people "hep", "hip", "groovy" and "cool", at different times, for displaying the same tendency to speak in the vernacular.

Understood. Another example of your "inverse snobbery" term would be when you attempt to correct someone's grammar or spelling online & are then labeled a "grammar nazi" or "spelling nazi".

Dante · **Posted:** Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:56 am

Rhino wrote:

Personally I find such predictable rationalizations of sloppy writing to be inverse snobbery - a lamentable recent trend.

I don't think so. I am definitely a fan of making sure people know how to write properly, and of being able to express themselves clearly. But much of the bickering over grammar out there in the world has little to do with that. It is instead about clinging to rules that are debatable precisely because they are archaic and no longer have any purpose. Split infinitives are not, and have never been, incorrect. Nor is it bad to begin a sentence with a contraction or a conjunction. Nor is it a problem to end a sentence with a preposition. Even a cursory examination of the history of the prohibitions on those things shows them to be the concern of a few people who weren't even speaking for the majority at the times they put forth the ideas. When this type of grammar correction occurs, it puts people off from learning to correct things they genuinely need to correct.

Quote:

There is absolutely no confusion about the meaning of "Little Johnny done so good on his English test, his professor must of been nuts not to given him an A". Judging writing only as communication, that sentence deserves an A too. It doesn't stop the sentence from being incorrect, ugly and indicative of a poor education.

Certainly. Which is, again, why education is important. Along the opposite spectrum, someone who will complain about the following is missing the forest for the trees:

"Little Johnny did well on his English test. His professor must have not known what he is talking about."

Likewise:

"Johnny's professor gave him an A unfairly."

Quote:

Of course there are examples where breaking the rules of grammar and improper word usage are not only acceptable but even preferable. Mostly of course due to the ignorance of the audience, but
still true. Outside statisticians, Latinists and economists, few people don't have to stop and think a bit when told that the data ARE positive, since everyone else expects "is" instead. And only English purists cringe any more when informed none of us are playing trivia right now, even though they are perfectly correct that, as a contraction of "not one", none of us really IS playing trivia right now. You may be uninterested in these rules, but none of us is truly disinterested.

I think we likely do not disagree on much of anything regarding this.

Quote:

Other rules are starting to sound a little archaic and forced too, even if generally understood to still be correct. I've had people snigger when saying things like "may I borrow a cloth with which to mop up this beer?" even when, according to the claim above, that communicates my desire with no possibility of confusion and so should be completely acceptable. Listeners would apparently much prefer the equally communicative but far less accurately framed "can I borrow (gods help us, even "lend") a cloth to mop up this beer with?".

Correct. And the listeners will win. The complaints that grammar snobs have effused for centuries on technical points where the language has evolved past or around them are just that: complaints. If we stuck with "what's correct" we would have lost a good quantity of what we now judge to be "correct" which was incorrect before, and, in all likelihood, would not be speaking our version of English.

Quote:

It's not and never has been about communication or lack of confusion - it's about keeping current with expected manners of speech and word usage shared by the intended audience. There is, I surely hope, not one of you who is ignorant of the meaning and typical usage of the word "lest". Using it as I once did to an educated audience made up of engineers and senior managers, I could be even more confident that it would be universally understood.

Just don't use the term niggardly around an audience who should, by all merits, know its meaning.

Quote:

It also had the advantage of being much shorter than the normal alternative of "so that....should not..." - a positive thing in one prone to verbosity as I am. I think they made fun of me for "lest" for about six years. I took it as a compliment, but it still demonstrates that lack of confusion and communication of ideas are not at the heart of complaints about rigid rules and precise word usage. Part of the reason is inverse snobbery - the feeling that everybody should sound "like normal folk". Part is a genuine inferiority complex from those who know that they lack the comprehension and vocabulary to follow suit, but I suspect most of it is the same kind of modish groupthink that made people "hep", "hip", "groovy" and "cool", at different times, for displaying the same tendency to speak in the vernacular.

I think your implications on "sounding like normal folk" are far more indicative of your position in an overall anti-intellectualism debate, and have very little to do with what I said. I am often appalled by the way people speak and am very often appalled by the way people write. Nevertheless, seeking to correct people who are not in a pedagogical environment is usually counterproductive. I'm relatively convinced that, excluding the rare person who is personally inclined to put the time in to improve himself regularly, once he leaves childhood or teenage years, he's usually a lost cause.

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

My post above was much more aimed at generic attitudes than your individual opinions, but here I think you specifically are trying to have it both ways. You can't claim the only concern of writing and speech should be communication with clarity and then defend the poor reaction to a perfectly clear and non-confusing communication like my (very real) beer cloth example. Anyone who resents or "corrects" such usage does so only BECAUSE of its precision and correctness. You are right that I see this as part of anti-intellectualism, because I have no clue what else it could be when people actively seek to encourage sloppiness in grammar and speech. It's not that I am accusing you of being an inverse snob, but I am saying I believe you are incorrect in thinking those who want to discourage correct speech (as opposed to correcting incorrect speech) are doing so for any other reason. I'd only include you in that category if you also wanted me to write and speak "like normal folk" (as may here can attest, I don't speak like Noel Coward either, but I do try to use correct grammar and accurate words).

As far as prepositions and split infinitives etc go I think the problem is that many have misremembered or misrepresented what was always taught as a useful guideline as if it were intended as an inflexible law. They never were. Churchill's "this is the kind of language up with which I will not put" skewered this misapprehension many decades ago, but the truth remains that most often it is clumsy or downright wrong to use final prepositions - starting with the ubiquitous (and unconfusing I must admit) "where's it at". Split infinitives are less of a problem now compound sentences are sadly decried as "run-on" and errors themselves, but anyone who has read Dickens for example, a "run-on" sentence maven if ever one lived, will appreciate the need for that general rule. Star Trek can go boldly wherever it wants, but when a sentence is a couple dozen lines long, you want the "to" next to the damn verb so you know you have finally reached it.

Dante · **Posted:** Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:49 pm

Rhino wrote:

My post above was much more aimed at generic attitudes than your individual opinions, but here I think you specifically are trying to have it both ways. You can't claim the only concern of writing and speech should be communication with clarity and then defend the poor reaction to a perfectly clear and non-confusing communication like my (very real) beer cloth example. Anyone who resents or "corrects" such usage does so only BECAUSE of its precision and correctness. You are right that I see this as part of anti-intellectualism, because I have no clue what else it could be when people actively seek to encourage sloppiness in grammar and speech. It's not that I am accusing you of being an inverse snob, but I am saying I believe you are incorrect in thinking those who want to discourage correct speech (as opposed to correcting incorrect speech) are doing so for any other reason. I'd only include you in that category if you also wanted me to write and speak "like normal folk" (as may here can attest, I don't speak like Noel Coward either, but I do try to use correct grammar and accurate words).

I specifically did not say that it is the only concern. But the primary concern of writing and speech is communication. There are many other concerns which are secondary to that which are also important.

I have yet to meet anyone personally who actively encourages sloppiness in grammar and speech, so I can't speak to that. The closest I saw impersonally was the old Ebonics thing, and I still am not sure that was an actual widespread intellectual discussion as much as it was a media contrivance to get old white people upset and upping the ratings. I can say again that there are good times, good reasons, and good intentions for correcting people. What you are talking about is only the latter of the three. People who disengage other people through their lack of awareness of setting are as guilty of harming communication as people who disregard language skills.

Again, though, I think we're speaking crossways. The majority -- if not all -- of the grammar things I've seen here have been in the category that you charitably described as misremembering flexible rules as inflexible rules. When it comes to general speech and writing patterns, I doubt we are very far apart.

It is not, though, having it both ways to say that I do not care a lick for archaic play-games and simultaneously think that writing and speech are about communicating. It's also not having it both ways to say that people (off the internet) would place the term "intellectual" on me, but to also imply quite strongly that the strongest enemy of the intellectual is the intellectual himself, insofar as he consistently undermines his best intentions. I consider this especially to be the case with grammar. Said slightly differently, if you go out of your way to be nothing but an annoyance and nuisance to other people, decide to come across as imperious and haughty, or skew the importance of your topic outside the limits with which an average person would associate it, then you fail before you begin. This is exactly what vocal grammarians are so often guilty of doing.

And so we're clear (communicative smiley face!), I'm not talking about you or anyone in this thread, but more the general context of "The English Language (tm!)" and its "defenders."

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

Dante wrote:

Rhino wrote:

My post above was much more aimed at generic attitudes than your individual opinions, but here I think you specifically are trying to have it both ways. You can't claim the only concern of writing and speech should be communication with clarity and then defend the poor reaction to a perfectly clear and non-confusing communication like my (very real) beer cloth example. Anyone who resents or "corrects" such usage does so only BECAUSE of its precision and correctness. You are right that I see this as part of anti-intellectualism, because I have no clue what else it could be when people actively seek to encourage sloppiness in grammar and speech. It's not that I am accusing you of being an inverse snob, but I am saying I believe you are incorrect in thinking those who want to discourage correct speech (as opposed to correcting incorrect speech) are doing so for any other reason. I'd only include you in that category if you also wanted me to write and speak "like normal folk" (as may here can attest, I don't speak like Noel Coward either, but I do try to use correct grammar and accurate words).

I specifically did not say that it is the only concern. But the primary concern of writing and speech is communication. There are many other concerns which are secondary to that which are also important.

I have yet to meet anyone personally who actively encourages sloppiness in grammar and speech, so I can't speak to that. The closest I saw impersonally was the old Ebonics thing, and I still am not sure that was an actual widespread intellectual discussion as much as it was a media contrivance to get old white people upset and upping the ratings. I can say again that there are good times, good reasons, and good intentions for correcting people. What you are talking about is only the latter of the three. People who disengage other people through their lack of awareness of setting are as guilty of harming communication as people who disregard language skills.

Again, though, I think we're speaking crossways. The majority -- if not all -- of the grammar things I've seen here have been in the category that you charitably described as misremembering flexible rules as inflexible rules. When it comes to general speech and writing patterns, I doubt we are very far apart.

It is not, though, having it both ways to say that I do not care a lick for archaic play-games and simultaneously think that writing and speech are about communicating. It's also not having it both ways to say that people (off the internet) would place the term "intellectual" on me, but to also imply quite strongly that the strongest enemy of the intellectual is the intellectual himself, insofar as he consistently undermines his best intentions. I consider this especially to be the case with grammar. Said slightly differently, if you go out of your way to be nothing but an annoyance and nuisance to other people, decide to come across as imperious and haughty, or skew the importance of your topic outside the limits with which an average person would associate it, then you fail before you begin. This is exactly what vocal grammarians are so often guilty of doing.

And so we're clear (communicative smiley face!), I'm not talking about you or anyone in this thread, but more the general context of "The English Language (tm!)" and its "defenders."

So is choosing NOT to end a sentence with a preposition "an annoyance and nuisance" or "haughty and imperious"? If either, why? If neither, why is it not encouraging sloppiness to "correct" it?

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Rhino wrote:

Dante wrote:

Writing, as with speech, is about communicating. When we become overly concerned with formal rules -- many of which are in error, or whose purpose has expired -- we miss the point.

There are a few obscure things that people really should work to do properly, but they're pretty rare. The only time I'm going to bother to correct someone's grammar is if the misuse actually causes confusion (failure to use subjunctive case properly), or when his target audience is snobby enough to care about of grammar in a professional sense.

In complete contradiction of what I've said above, if you say "an historic occasion" in my presence, I'll consider sticking a spoon through your larynx.

Personally I find such predictable rationalizations of sloppy writing to be inverse snobbery - a lamentable recent trend.

There is absolutely no confusion about the meaning of "Little Johnny done so good on his English test, his professor must of been nuts not to given him an A". Judging writing only as communication, that sentence deserves an A too. It doesn't stop the sentence from being incorrect, ugly and indicative of a poor education.

Of course there are examples where breaking the rules of grammar and improper word usage are not only acceptable but even preferable. Mostly of course due to the ignorance of the audience, but still true. Outside statisticians, Latinists and economists, few people don't have to stop and think a bit when told that the data ARE positive, since everyone else expects "is" instead. And only English purists cringe any more when informed none of us are playing trivia right now, even though they are perfectly correct that, as a contraction of "not one", none of us really IS playing trivia right now. You may be uninterested in these rules, but none of us is truly disinterested.

Other rules are starting to sound a little archaic and forced too, even if generally understood to still be correct. I've had people snigger when saying things like "may I borrow a cloth with which to mop up this beer?" even when, according to the claim above, that communicates my desire with no possibility of confusion and so should be completely acceptable. Listeners would apparently much prefer the equally communicative but far less accurately framed "can I borrow (gods help us, even "lend") a cloth to mop up this beer with?".

It's not and never has been about communication or lack of confusion - it's about keeping current with expected manners of speech and word usage shared by the intended audience. There is, I surely hope, not one of you who is ignorant of the meaning and typical usage of the word "lest". Using it as I once did to an educated audience made up of engineers and senior managers, I could be even more confident that it would be universally understood. It also had the advantage of being much shorter than the normal alternative of "so that....should not..." - a positive thing in one prone to verbosity as I am. I think they made fun of me for "lest" for about six years. I took it as a compliment, but it still demonstrates that lack of confusion and communication of ideas are not at the heart of complaints about rigid rules and precise word usage. Part of the reason is inverse snobbery - the feeling that everybody should sound "like normal folk". Part is a genuine inferiority complex from those who know that they lack the comprehension and vocabulary to follow suit, but I suspect most of it is the same kind of modish groupthink that made people "hep", "hip", "groovy" and "cool", at different times, for displaying the same tendency to speak in the vernacular.

Great post, I'll bet that you took college. :lol:

Yep, there are times when we all ignore grammatical rules to fit the occasion or audience. However, when reporters on the Six O'clock news, or writers for the New York Times ignore simple grammatical rules, I have to worry...

p.s. Where did you go to college?

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Rhino wrote:

So is choosing NOT to end a sentence with a preposition "an annoyance and nuisance" or "haughty and imperious"? If either, why? If neither, why is it not encouraging sloppiness to "correct" it?

DANTE has explained his thoughts on changes in the English language to me before. If I remember correctly, I believe he feels that all languages are in flux and gradually evolve over time. He's probably right, but it bothers me that the English language seems to be evolving to accommodate ignorance, stupidity, and an education system that doesn't give a shit how people write or talk.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

I ain't ever going to try to correct anyone's grammer on the "ScaRatings" for several reasons.

1 - I could very well be wrong.

2- I don't want to piss anyone off.

3- I damn well know that I'm going goof up a bunch of times too.

4- Sometimes I like to screw around with capitalization, punctuation, spelling, etc., to add excitement and humor to my posts. (When I do this, I feel no shame, because I have been issued a poetic license by the Department of Education's Mt. Helicon office, that allows me to break any rule I want to, whenever I need to. It also covers me when I just goof up. ) :lol:

p.s. You guys might want to think of picking one of these up also. It's a good thing to carry in your wallet. It doesn't cost much, you don't have to take a test to get one, and the "ScaRatings" accepts it! :lol:

(Here's the link.)

http://www.squidoo.com/poetic-license

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

Cloudy wrote:

Rhino wrote:

So is choosing NOT to end a sentence with a preposition "an annoyance and nuisance" or "haughty and imperious"? If either, why? If neither, why is it not encouraging sloppiness to "correct" it?

DANTE has explained his thoughts on changes in the English language to me before. If I remember correctly, I believe he feels that all languages are in flux and gradually evolve over time. He's probably right, but it bothers me that the English language seems to be evolving to accommodate ignorance, stupidity, and an education system that doesn't give a shit how people write or talk.

I understand and even agree. Language inevitably evolves, just like animals. But just like in animals, the evolution of language goes down some wacky dead ends along the way. Sabre toothed tigers for example. Seemed like unstoppable super-predators, survived several climate changes, but just couldn't compete with smaller but more capable modern predators. Where we may disagree is that I still think it's possible to spot the evolutionary dead-ends and resist them. Of course English should encompass even awkward neologisms such as the verb "to google", and grammar rules that serve no redeeming purpose for either function or aesthetics should change, such as split infinitive prohibitions that, like saber-tooth cats, are no longer useful as their prey, "run-on" sentences, have all but disappeared. I suspect I do differ from Dante in believing other oft-ignored rules still serve a purpose. The recent shift from using adverbs to modify verbs to using adjectives like "he did good", "she walked fast", and so on is both ugly and possibly confusing (he performed well on a test or he acted with great charity and benevolence?). I will use google as a verb, but I will correctly state that she walked quickly. Dante, to me, seems to be saying that once a sizeable group thinks it's ok to adopt incorrect grammar, we all should be willing to go along to avoid being branded haughty or annoying. I disagree, and will choose to use correct grammar as long as it is likely to be understood.

That doesn't mean by the way that I would call an old woman a faggot or say I had a wonderfully gay time at the bar on Sunday simply because these meanings used to be normal, and technically in the latter case at least still retains its older sense. They would not be widely understood in their earlier context any more. I guess the fundamental difference is that I prefer to use an older meaning until it is no longer understood, while Dante suggests using a newer meaning as soon as it is understood. To defend my preference, I would point out the many new words and grammar modifications in my lifetime that were briefly acceptable and then disappeared. I never called anyone groovy in the 70s for example, and to do so now would be weird. Whereas calling them "fashionable" or "amiable" is still correct and always was. I hope I will see the resurgence of adverbs, but if I don't I will wait until "he did well" is as prone to misunderstanding as my gay time at the bar before I ever say "he did good on the test".

Cloudy wrote:

p.s. Where did you go to college?

Bit of an Americanism but since you at least didn't add a final "at" :roll:

I'll play along. Edinburgh, why?

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Rhino wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

p.s. Where did you go to college?

Bit of an Americanism but since you at least didn't add a final "at" :roll:

I'll play along. Edinburgh, why?

I'm assuming that there isn't some little town in Mississippi named Edinburgh, and it's the one in Scotland. If so, are you an American, who chose to cross the big pond to go to school, or are you a Scotsman, who decided to move to the colonies? Either way, I'm impressed. I've been to Edinbugh one time, and loved the city. The only thing that disappointed me was that they tore down the house where Arthur Conan Doyle was born to put up public housing.

Why did I ask you where you went to college? (Don't let this go to your head.) The answer is that I am very impressed with your grasp of the English language, writing ability, and cogent arguments. I was just curious where you might have learned these skills.

................................... Edinburgh University

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

Cloudy wrote:

Rhino wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

p.s. Where did you go to college?

Bit of an Americanism but since you at least didn't add a final "at" :roll:

I'll play along. Edinburgh, why?

I'm assuming that there isn't some little town in Mississippi named Edinburgh, and it's the one in Scotland. If so, are you an American, who chose to cross the big pond to go to school, or are you a Scotsman, who decided to move to the colonies? Either way, I'm impressed. I've been to Edinbugh one time, and loved the city. The only thing that disappointed me was that they tore down Arthur Conan Doyle's boyhood home to put up public housing.

Why did I ask you where you went to college? (Don't let this go to your head.) The answer is that I am very impressed with your grasp of the English language, writing ability, and cogent arguments. I was just curious where you might have learned these skills.

................................... Edinburgh University

Technically neither, although yep it's the Edinburgh in Scotland. The Scots never let me forget that I was English at the time (born about 80 miles south of the border) although I am American now - and it gets even more confusing as under US law I am an American citizen only, whereas under UK law I have both American and British citizenship.

And don't worry - I have been reliably informed my head is about at maximum size already, so flattery will have no effect :oops:

(which incidentally, is very different from affect, getting back on topic....)

liljol · **Joined:** Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:41 pm **Posts:** 2497

THE ICEMAN wrote:

liljol wrote:

IMO, the most godawful, horribly overused word for at least a dozen years or so has been "...dude..." as an exclamation or reply. Despite the fact that a fairly well known Southern California NTN Buzztime player uses it as his handle, the day cannot come too soon for this lil old grumpy bastard for that godawful, horrible usage to die its long overdue death.

Does this mean you'll not allow me to call you "lildude" anymore? :cry:

Ah, ICEMAN, you get a permanent pass for that.

liljol · **Joined:** Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:41 pm **Posts:** 2497

IMO, one of the most godawful, horribly prevalent misuses for far too long has been the use of "hate" as lil more than a lazy, convenient way to express mere dislike.

I hope most if not all here make a decent distinction between them.

IDJIT5500 · **Joined:** Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:02 pm **Posts:** 404

liljol wrote:

IMO, one of the most godawful, horribly prevalent misuses for far too long has been the use of "hate" as lil more than a lazy, convenient way to express mere dislike.

I hope most if not all here make a decent distinction between them.

when i say "i hate the yankees," i'm pretty sure i hate the yankees.

Akbar71 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:50 am

On my way into the restaurant this morning, I heard a radio advertisement for a mortgage company offering a mortgage refinance for a $1 fee. The announcer said, "You heard correct. One dollar." I cringed and thought of this thread.

Also, the offer was only available "for a limited time," which in itself seems a curious turn of phrase , but that would be a discussion for a quantam physics thread, I guess.

liljol · **Joined:** Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:41 pm **Posts:** 2497

IDJIT5500 wrote:

liljol wrote:

IMO, one of the most godawful, horribly prevalent misuses for far too long has been the use of "hate" as lil more than a lazy, convenient way to express mere dislike.

I hope most if not all here make a decent distinction between them.

when i say "i hate the yankees," i'm pretty sure i hate the yankees.

Well, IMO "hate" is way, way, way more than a lil too extreme with respect to sports.

Most of you are well aware of my major dislike for several sports teams, especially the eternally damnable junior university, the eternally damnable columbus suckeyes, the eternally damnable biting irish, and the eternally damnable evil empire 1b FBOSOX. For sure, I hope those eternally damnable teams lose every game they play, but I stop short of hoping that their players suffer serious injuries.

I reserve "hate" for only a few people/things. When that m-f-ing son of a bitch Osama Bin Laden was alive, for damn sure I hated him, and even though the m-f-ing son of a bitch is dead, I will forever hate his soul and everything he did and stood for.

spotes · **Joined:** Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:27 pm **Posts:** 1558

IDJIT5500 wrote:

liljol wrote:

IMO, one of the most godawful, horribly prevalent misuses for far too long has been the use of "hate" as lil more than a lazy, convenient way to express mere dislike.

I hope most if not all here make a decent distinction between them.

when i say "i hate the yankees," i'm pretty sure i hate the yankees.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
And the early leader for "Post of the Year" makes itself known... :mrgreen:

ANON · **Joined:** Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:59 pm **Posts:** 2232

IDJIT5500 wrote:

when i say "i hate the yankees," i'm pretty sure i hate the yankees.

Where's the "Like" button on this site?

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Cloudy wrote:

I've been to Edinbugh one time, and loved the city. The only thing that disappointed me was that they tore down the house where Arthur Conan Doyle was born to put up public housing.

Sorry, had to add this...

..........

............................................. All that's left. .................................................................................... What's there today. ............................................. Sadly, even Holmes won't find it today.

p.s. I was able to Google several pictures of Doyle's homes, but not the one they tore down. Can anyone help me find it. Sherlock has given up.

Dante · **Posted:** Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:01 am

Rhino wrote:

So is choosing NOT to end a sentence with a preposition "an annoyance and nuisance" or "haughty and imperious"? If either, why? If neither, why is it not encouraging sloppiness to "correct" it?

I don't know the answer to that one. I've researched enough to know that, in general, we don't form our sentences consciously, and that they're mostly pre-formed before they hit the expressive language centers of the brain. I end sentences with a preposition when it sounds generally correct, and don't when it doesn't. I very rarely "post-edit" a thought, and when I do, usually realize the post-editing just makes it sound obnoxious. Again, this is specific to prepositions.

I can't give you a black or white rule on when something is an annoyance or haughty any more than anyone else could. It's entirely situational. And, again, based on the way our brain pre-processes language for both verbal or written communication, not much help comes from correcting someone speaking. It takes inculcation from either a young, or open, recipient. There aren't many of those walking around.

Dante · **Posted:** Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:13 am

Rhino wrote:

Dante, to me, seems to be saying that once a sizeable group thinks it's ok to adopt incorrect grammar, we all should be willing to go along to avoid being branded haughty or annoying. I disagree, and will choose to use correct grammar as long as it is likely to be understood.

No, I didn't say anything of the sort. I did say that when a sizeable enough group thinks incorrect grammar in correct, it doesn't bloody matter what you or anyone else think, because that is where the language will go, though likely long after you're dead.

Quote:

That doesn't mean by the way that I would call an old woman a faggot or say I had a wonderfully gay time at the bar on Sunday simply because these meanings used to be normal, and technically in the latter case at least still retains its older sense. They would not be widely understood in their earlier context any more. I guess the fundamental difference is that I prefer to use an older meaning until it is no longer understood, while Dante suggests using a newer meaning as soon as it is understood.

Again, I said nothing of the sort. I'm the guy who is reviled for insisting on writing properly, using capitalization, punctuation, and proper spelling in text messages and IM. I care very little about what the "mass" chooses to do. As I have said before, you and I likely agree on almost everything in its technical sense. But it's the practical application where we diverge. There is absolutely no point in fighting battles that are already lost. If you want to correct people, or think it's proper, correct children, or find someone who wants to be your pupil. Otherwise, it's best, and wiser, to do no such thing.

And you are fighting a lost battle. Being a good student of history, you should know enough know to know that.

Quote:

To defend my preference, I would point out the many new words and grammar modifications in my lifetime that were briefly acceptable and then disappeared. I never called anyone groovy in the 70s for example, and to do so now would be weird. Whereas calling them "fashionable" or "amiable" is still correct and always was. I hope I will see the resurgence of adverbs, but if I don't I will wait until "he did well" is as prone to misunderstanding as my gay time at the bar before I ever say "he did good on the test".

I'm not sure that anecdotal, historical neologisms really make a case against true widespread differences in usage. Aside from that, it's not the best example. People still use groovy. And, indeed, everyone understands what it means and it communicates something very particular, even if the communication is of the cultural conditions from which it arose. But it's a complete non-sequitur: there are huge differences between the syntactical structure of sentences and case and number differential of nouns, and the examination of adjectives or adjectival nouns. The latter are a small subset of the what is happening (and has always happened) in the transition of the English language. They have always arisen and disappeared quickly in every language. But the diminution of "rules" is a process unto itself, and unrelated to the coining of new words, IMO.

Quote:

Bit of an Americanism but since you at least didn't add a final "at" :roll:

I'll play along. Edinburgh, why?

I think we should all study some more Russian so we can have even more interesting arguments about the spoken placement and elision of particular words and signifiers. Makes debates about American English seem simple.

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

I think I see the confusion. I am not talking about correcting others. I do so rarely, and usually either in jest, self-parody, or an attempt to embarrass someone who has already done so in all seriousness but in error. My concern, such as it is, is that I want myself and others to be able to speak, or more likely write, as correctly as we are able without someone "correcting" us with sloppy vernacular or abusing us for avoiding it. Words are entertaining, fun, even beautiful at times. They are far less likely to be so when poorly used and chosen from a tiny pool of options. Joyce pulled it off, as did O'Brien in a different style. But since few have such epochal genius, least of all me, I simply prefer the language use of Nabokov to that of NaS.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

An open letter to DANTE and RHINO:

You guys are too smart, and introduce concepts that are too complex and complicated for many of us common folk to understand, let alone respond to. Others will be afraid to stick their little toe into this thread, for fear of looking stupid next to you guys. Watching the clash of you intellectual Titans is interesting, but my little toe is afraid to test the water.

Dante · **Posted:** Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:22 pm

Cloudy wrote:

An open letter ton DANTE and RHINO:

You guys are too smart, and introduce concepts that are too complex and complicated for many of us common folk to understand, let alone respond to. Others will be afraid to stick their little toe into this thread, for fear of looking stupid next to you guys. Watching the clash of you intellectual Titans is interesting, but my little toe is afraid to test the water.

I've had plenty of discussions with your little toe. It's up to the challenge. Just yesterday, I heard it say, "That thread is my favorite to boldly go to!"

New Scaratings

The English Language

Who is online