Periods Meeting Quotes

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

You want me to answer your questions without extending the same courtesy to me? No, I'm afraid we can't proceed on that basis.

Don't get all right and proper with me, Joe. You have been doing that from the outset.

Quote:

If you want me to answer that, you'll first have to explain whether "me want cookie" is standard English, as I asked in my previous post.

I thought you were being silly. That you didn't want, or NEED, an answer to such a question.

Now I'm even more concerned about your standing, but okay.

No, "me want cookie" is not standard English. But what does that have to do with whether "She's been to ..." is grammatical?

Did you miss Contrex's posting?

1 Reply

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

It isn't, (it may be some kind of Ozark dialect?) but shortening 'has' to an apostrophe and an s most certainly is. Stop digging. Or trolling. Whichever.

Accusing someone of trolling is a good example of trolling. Now go sit in the corner and be a good boy. I'm putting you on a time-out.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

No, "me want cookie" is not standard English. But what does that have to do with whether "She's been to ..." is grammatical?

It means that intelligibility does not determine whether or not something is grammatical, which is what you've been trying to argue. "Me want cookie" is perfectly intelligible, though even you admit it's ungrammatical. So you'll have to come up with a better explanation for why "she's been to" is grammatical, since intelligibility clearly is not the standard.

Now, in response to your previous query:

JTT wrote:

Are you embarrassed to tell us that little gem came from one of your elementary school teachers?

You're begging the question. I can't answer that.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Accusing someone of trolling is a good example of trolling.

Why haven't you raised this for all the other times when others have raised this inanity, Joe?

By the way, have you noticed how you are avoiding the central issue, the very issue that you raised?

Where did you ever come across this "rule", Joe, Eva? Why aren't there scores of A2Kers joining you two in this grade school reminiscence?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm putting you on a time-out.

I presume that is something American teachers say to misbehaving children?

1 Reply

Joefromchicago, for at least a couple of centuries it has been a perfectly standard usage to shorten 'has' after a noun to apostrophe + s. Like all such shortenings (am / 'm , is / 's, have / 've, had / 'd etc) this occurs in situations where some informality is appropriate, conversation, reported speech, etc. To that extent it is a deviation from formal language. What authority do you have for saying that it is not "grammatical"? Is it because you think that English should be as designers of computer programming languages say, "orthogonal"? You have twisted and turned and persistently avoided answering this question, which is one of the things that attention trolls do, which is why I alluded to to the possibility of your being one.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

God you're funny, joefromchicago. That's one of the better posts I've seen in a month of Sundays.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

"Me want cookie" is perfectly intelligible, though even you admit it's ungrammatical.

I didn't say it was ungrammatical, Joe. I said it wasn't standard English.

Quote:

It means that intelligibility does not determine whether or not something is grammatical, which is what you've been trying to argue

What I've been trying to get is an explanation from you as to why this perfectly grammatical contraction is, according to you, [and Eva, or at least she maybe thinks so] ungrammatical.

Quote:

You're begging the question. I can't answer that.

You're being terribly cagey. Why, Joe? Just tell me where you came across this piece of prescriptive nonsense.

1 Reply

@contrex,

No, people who are stumped use tangents like this to avoid dealing with the central issue.

0 Replies

I like the New Yorker magazine's take on grammar as I observe it by reading their articles.

I don't always comply in my own writing.
That is because:
I'm too dumb
I'm not quite awake
I forgot what I had observed
I typed sans thought/review
I had too much wine
I'm playing with words again

or all of the above at the same time.

Sister Mel would understand me.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

In that, you and Joe are much alike, Osso. You both love to dither and inject tangents.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

I like the New Yorker magazine's take on grammar as I observe it by reading their articles.

I don't always comply in my own writing.
That is because:

...

That is such nonsense, Osso, but at least you can feel warm in that it is really old nonsense. You follow those "rules" in your own writing because they are the rules that everyone follows. We follow rules that are real, natural rules of English.

You don't, of course, follow every style that a published magazine would because your writing isn't meant for publishing.

People, like Eva and actually Joe, are only aware of these silly rules when someone points them out. Can you imagine that for all the times that Joe has read similar constructions at A2K, this is the first time he's ever mentioned this "rule".

Language and grammar is extremely complicated stuff. You realize this because you know that you can't explain much of anything about how language works and yet you use language, more or less, in a perfect fashion.

The New Yorker's take on grammar is probably good on the odd occasion. But most/many of these style grammars are filled with old, arrant nonsense.

0 Replies

Why do so many A2K discussions deteriorate to this level?

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Is that not obvious Frank?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do so many A2K discussions deteriorate to this level?

The slogan "Ask an expert" is asking for trouble. It attracts not just "experts" but pompous self-important pontificators.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I can tell why in the case of language issues, Frank. For far too long, people, ignorant people, have been allowed to present complete nonsense about language as if it has merit.

There is much to discuss, reasonably, about language. When crap like this is presented, the crap must be addressed. Just because this is old crap remembered fondly because it may have come from your favorite teacher doesn't change the fact that it is crap.

That you can't address the facts on these issues ought to tell you something.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Accusing someone of trolling is a good example of trolling.

Why haven't you raised this for all the other times when others have raised this inanity, Joe?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

JTT wrote:

By the way, have you noticed how you are avoiding the central issue, the very issue that you raised?

Where did you ever come across this "rule", Joe, Eva? Why aren't there scores of A2Kers joining you two in this grade school reminiscence?

How is that the central issue, and when did I ever raise it?

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
"Me want cookie" is perfectly intelligible, though even you admit it's ungrammatical.

I didn't say it was ungrammatical, Joe. I said it wasn't standard English.

Who's being cagey now? OK, is "me want cookie" grammatically correct?

JTT wrote:

What I've been trying to get is an explanation from you as to why this perfectly grammatical contraction is, according to you, [and Eva, or at least she maybe thinks so] ungrammatical.

It's ungrammatical because it violates a rule of grammar. How else can something be ungrammatical?

JTT wrote:

Quote:
You're begging the question. I can't answer that.

You're being terribly cagey. Why, Joe? Just tell me where you came across this piece of prescriptive nonsense.

I have no idea where I learned that rule. Unlike some people here, I finished my primary education many years ago. I have picked up a lot of information since then. Not that anyone should give a ****.

0 Replies

@Joe England,

I would say Joe that anything goes grammatically which conveys the meaning most efficiently.

If that begs the question of what the meaning is then I would say that the meaning is to get as close to the mental state of the author at the time of writing as possible.

Laurence Sterne writes somewhere about writing hungry and writing satiate. Sober or pissed. In love, out of love, unrequited in love and not believing in love. Any author of note would use grammatical forms which he thinks conveys these various states of mind to the reader.

For example, Sarstedt's Where Do You Go To My Lovely" has a grammatical structure wholly different from the original, and it was original, version in de Sade. The difference is that Sarstedt's song is an affectation of sexual sophistication whereas de Sade is really interested where she goes and suggests a method of finding out and which can now be read off advertising. Genteelly of course! ---natch---"know what I mean Squire!"

How's that Frank for deterioration?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Is that not obvious Frank?

It is not, Spendius.

Not too long ago, I remember A2K as a place where reasonable, intelligent discussions took place. And since the issues were often contentious issues, those discussions occasionally became heated and nasty.

Now it seems as though almost every discussion is heated and nasty...with people seeming almost to despise each other...people constantly looking for opportunities to call someone stupid, ignorant, uninformed…and who knows what else.

Honestly, I do not understand it…and it is anything but obvious to me.

I’d truly appreciate it if you would spell it out a bit for me, Spendius.

2 Replies

Periods Meeting Quotes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know