liljol wrote:
Nuts. CLOUDY has irreversibly jinxed you. 
Liljol, the "Cloudy Jinx" only applies to sports contests.
| New Scaratings http://www.scaratings.com/newScaratings/ |
|
| The English Language http://www.scaratings.com/newScaratings/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1023 |
Page 14 of 15 |
| Author: | Cloudy [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | The Jinx... |
liljol wrote: Nuts. CLOUDY has irreversibly jinxed you. Liljol, the "Cloudy Jinx" only applies to sports contests.
|
|
| Author: | Gogetem [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Keep it up... |
Cloudy wrote: Gogetem wrote: Maybe it's a coincidence that you mentioned that. Others are already showing up and some are using iPhones now as more boxes are needed. Keep it up, and before you know it you will have an ass-kicking team...! Be sure to welcome every new player, and ask them to join your team. Even though some might not come up with a lot of answers, many of them know people, who do, and they will bring them to the bar with them next time. Many years ago we had a gal, who had just come into Friday's for a couple drinks. She asked the bartender for a box, because she saw the rest of us playing them. At a break between games I went over and talked to her. I asked her to come back again. She laughed and said, "You don't want me. You want my sister." Her sister showed up the next week, and became one of the best players our team ever had. Her sister, Mary (MM) not only led us to great Network Rankings, she missed a week, because she had to go to be on "Jeopardy". So far we have 5 good to pretty good players, 2 that may know an answer here and there, but they at least try. There are 2 new ones, one that writes crosswords for the LA Times. She does help quite a bit. Also another of the original has watched practically every movie known to man. That definitely helps.
|
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Sounds good... |
Gogetem wrote: So far we have 5 good to pretty good players, 2 that may know an answer here and there, but they at least try. There are 2 new ones, one that writes crosswords for the LA Times. She does help quite a bit. Also another of the original has watched practically every movie known to man. That definitely helps. Sounds good... You may have already mentioned the name of your bar and city, but if you did, I missed it. Please tell me again, so I can look for you guys and gals on the Network Rankings. Go get 'em...! 
|
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | The missing link... |
I knew it was out there somewhere, and decided to go looking for it. Here is the link to the missing thread that really should have been part of this one: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1823 So if this thread isn't exciting enough for you, you can simply click on the link above for a real thrill.
|
|
| Author: | Gogetem [ Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sounds good... |
Cloudy wrote: Gogetem wrote: So far we have 5 good to pretty good players, 2 that may know an answer here and there, but they at least try. There are 2 new ones, one that writes crosswords for the LA Times. She does help quite a bit. Also another of the original has watched practically every movie known to man. That definitely helps. Sounds good... You may have already mentioned the name of your bar and city, but if you did, I missed it. Please tell me again, so I can look for you guys and gals on the Network Rankings. Go get 'em...! It's: Pineapple Hill Saloon and Grill located in Tustin, CA. It usually lists as Pineapple Hill. |
|
| Author: | liljol [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The English Language |
Well, hell. Whilst reading an online recap of The Golden State Warriors' win over the denver nuggets  , this crapped up:"(Stephen) Curry, wearing a large white brace around both ankles..." How the fuck does an NBA player (or, for that matter, any athlete) function with one brace around both ankles?  |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Liljol, you are right... |
liljol wrote: Well, hell. Whilst reading an online recap of The Golden State Warriors' win over the denver nuggets , this crapped up:"(Stephen) Curry, wearing a large white brace around both ankles..." How the fuck does an NBA player (or, for that matter, any athlete) function with one brace around both ankles? Liljol, you are right, and very perceptive. Many of those, who write for the media, would have never gotten their articles past Miss Hawks, my fourth grade teacher at Fort Stanwix elementary school in Rome, NY, without a lot of red pencil corrections. The sad thing is that the editors are no better. However, neither the writers nor the editors have a thing to worry about, because the masses are asses, and they can get away with their sloppy writing. Few of their readers will ever find the stupid mistakes in the articles they print in their papers, besides intelligent people as you. |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Is it "the media is", or is it "the media are"? |
Obviously "the media" is plural, and one might think it deserves a plural verb. However, it could be considered as a singular thing, such as the United States is. I have heard and read people, who should know the English language, say both "the media is" and "the media are". Who's right...? Is there a rule about this...? p.s. I kind of like "the media is" better. |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | According to Michael Medved... |
Cloudy wrote: Obviously "the media" is plural, and one might think it deserves a plural verb. However, it could be considered as a singular thing, such as the United States is. I have heard and read people, who should know the English language, say both "the media is" and "the media are". Who's right...? Is there a rule about this...? p.s. I kind of like "the media is" better.  ................ Michael Medved I was just listening to Michael Medved on the radio. Interestingly, he said that prior to the Civil War the United States was considered as plural, and it was "the United States are...". After the Civil war, the United States was considered singular, and it became "the United States is...". However, I'm not sure if he said this in a factual grammatical context. |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Words that become overused... |
Back in the 1960's the word "ludicrous" was being used by just about everybody to the point it became ridiculously funny. Recently, I keep hearing another word over and over again. That word would be "disingenuous". Has anyone else noticed this? Ironically, many of those, whom I hear using this word, are not totally honest or sincere in the rest of what they have to say. 
|
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | I feel so embarrassed for them... |
I feel so embarrassed for people, who go out of their way to use the pronoun "I" instead of "me", when "me" would have been correct. My guess is that these are under educated people, who have learned that they have been using "me" incorrectly, and now use "I" in all cases right or wrong. I hear them making this mistake all of the time, and most of them are politicians or people in the media. Perhaps someone might have some comments on this to pass on to you and I.
|
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Why the apostrophe...? |
I have seen an apostrophe inserted between a year and the "s" that follows it, when reading things such as "Let's go back to the 1960's." in so many places, and for such a long time, that I started inserting the apostrophe also. However, the more I think about it, the apostrophe does not belong there. It does not indicate a possessive, nor an abbreviation. The "s" just makes it plural, and does not call for an apostrophe. From now on, I'm going write, "The 1950s were a good time to have lived." Do any of you smart guys know what is right here? .......................................................................................... 1980's or 1980s ? |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Feckless |
I love it when words that have been seldom used, start showing up on TV and radio talk shows. The new word that you will probably be hearing more often than you have ever heard before is "feckless". This word that is now being used on news commentary programs just a little bit less frequently than the word "the". Just in case you haven't been listening, here's one definition of the word "feckless": feck·less [fek-lis] adjective 1. ineffective; incompetent; futile: feckless attempts to repair the plumbing. 2. having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy. Here's another definition: 1- weak, ineffective 2- : worthless, irresponsible I've lived a long sheltered life, and I have not run across this word until just very recently. Why all of a sudden has this word become so widely used...? p.s. Now that I have learned the word, I like it, and may start using it myself. p.p.s. My only concern about using "feckless" is that as often as I hear it being used, it might soon become considered trite.
|
|
| Author: | THE ICEMAN [ Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The English Language |
Well now. Let us use feckless in a sentence, shall we?  "Cloudy's understanding & attempts at using a computer's functions are feckless at best." |
|
| Author: | Rhino [ Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The English Language |
I don't know if anyone has come across this site before. I may have even posted here before - not bothering to check. In any event it scans word frequency over time in the millions of books Google have digitized. You can compare words in frequency to others. I mapped a couple of words from a post above and found feckless, while still not common, has actually been undergoing a quite rare almost linear growth in frequency over the last centuries. Most non-neologisms that are even vaguely outside Kardashian-level vocabularies are declining, as we can see with the comparator "trite" https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... te%3B%2Cc0 
|
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | I knew it would happen... |
THE ICEMAN wrote: Well now. Let us use feckless in a sentence, shall we? "Cloudy's understanding & attempts at using a computer's functions are feckless at best." I knew it would happen. Now that ICEMAN is using the word "feckless" for the first time in his life, it has indeed become trite. p.s. Though I know ICEMAN knows this, just in case others might not, here's a definition of the word "trite": Adjective: trite; comparative adjective: triter; superlative adjective: tritest (Of a remark, opinion, or idea) overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness. Synonyms: banal, hackneyed, clichéd, platitudinous, vapid, commonplace, stock, conventional, stereotyped, overused, overdone, overworked, stale, worn out, timeworn, tired, hoary, hack, unimaginative, unoriginal, uninteresting, dull, uninvolving. |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The English Language |
Rhino wrote: I don't know if anyone has come across this site before. I may have even posted here before - not bothering to check. In any event it scans word frequency over time in the millions of books Google have digitized. You can compare words in frequency to others. I mapped a couple of words from a post above and found feckless, while still not common, has actually been undergoing a quite rare almost linear growth in frequency over the last centuries. Most non-neologisms that are even vaguely outside Kardashian-level vocabularies are declining, as we can see with the comparator "trite" https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... te%3B%2Cc0 Rhino, you must have been an English major, or a least a minor. Hell, you might even teach it. My knowledge of the English language is rudimentary at best, but I enjoy goofing around with it on this thread, because I learn things. You've put a very interesting site up here. Thank you. p.s. I don't think the word "feckless" has had enough time to show up in very many books yet, but it is all over talk radio and television. |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Farther or Further... |
I actually learned this late in life from watching the movie "Finding Forrester". (It's a wonderful movie.) Here is a link to where I learned something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnraJOeOyM The words "farther" and "further" are not synonyms, that can be used interchangeably. "Farther" applies to distance, and "further" applies to degree, and is also synonymous with "additionally". In the past these words were used interchangeably, but now they should not be. Lately, I have heard "smart" people on TV and the radio mix these two words up so many times, that I thought I should make mention of this. |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The English Language |
I just heard a radio talk show host pronounce the word "potable" with a short "O". Yeah, the "pot" part of the word was pronounced just like one would, when talking about the metal container that's used to boil pasta. My first thought was, could I have been mispronouncing this word all of my life, because I have always treated the "O" as a long vowel. So I Googled the pronunciation to find out. I'm glad I did, because not only was I right that it was a long vowel, but I discovered a great website. Here's the website that gives you audio pronunciations of English words (British pronunciation first, followed by American pronunciation, if there's a difference): http://www.howjsay.com/ |
|
| Author: | mrgray [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The English Language |
It seems as if his "potable" was none too potent.
|
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The English Language |
mrgray wrote: It seems as if his "potable" was none too potent. I guess I should have mentioned the radio talk show host's name. It was Hugh Hewitt. After listening to his show for several years, I would guess that you are probably right about his potables are none too potent.
|
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Trivia Question...! What's wrong here? |
What's wrong here? In 1903 Tom Horn was hung in Wyoming for killing Willie Nickell. (Yep, it's a trivia question. Let's see who get's it right first.
|
|
| Author: | THE ICEMAN [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The English Language |
Hanged. |
|
| Author: | Cloudy [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Damn, you know just about everything... |
THE ICEMAN wrote: Hanged. Damn, you know just about everything... You are absolutely correct...! Nobody has ever been "hung" in proper English grammar. All of the scoundrels, who went to the gallows were "hanged". The past tense of "hang", when it applies to such things as drying laundry on a clothes line, or putting pictures on the wall is "hung". However, when it comes to scoundrels, who met their fate at the gallows, the past tense is "hanged". Here's a link that explains why ICEMAN is correct: http://grammarist.com/usage/hanged-hung/ |
|
| Author: | Akbar71 [ Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Damn, you know just about everything... |
Cloudy wrote: Nobody has ever been "hung" in proper English grammar. All of the scoundrels, who went to the gallows were "hanged". I dunno; John Dillinger never went to the gallows, but I've read that he was quite well hung. |
|
| Page 14 of 15 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|