63
   

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 06:35 pm
@farmerman,
Ok fine. I seem to remember you quoting away, which irks me.

Long time a2kers seem not to get that clicking on the wee green item will bring back the original text..........so they ******* quote it all..

Thus I watch near eternal scullduggary in print as a prelude to someone else answering.

******* annoying.

Stop it, don't keep quoting evermore.

JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 06:36 pm
@farmerman,
What is it that so possesses a man to cause him to keep jumping up and down, screaming, "Look at me everyone, I'm an intellectual coward"?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 06:38 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
******* annoying.


HI OSSOBUCO!!!!! [waves]

That's only because you keep peeking, Osso.

0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 07:09 pm
Holy Horse ****, Batman! This place has gone to the dogs.

This squabbling reminds me of a joke that I heard, perhaps on SNL Live. The setting was around the time of Iran-Iraq War.

An Iraqi solder stands up and shoots his rifle over the bunker and yells, "It should end in Q!"

Then an Iranian soldier stands up and shoots his rifle over the bunker yelling, "It should end in N!"

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 07:25 pm
@Ragman,
Quote:
Holy Horse ****, Batman! This place has gone to the dogs.

This squabbling reminds me of a


This reminds me of why we have a legal system instead of leaving it to any ole Joe who happens to wander in to make uniformed decisions like that above.

Hello, everybody, this is your action news reporter with all the news
that is news across the nation, on the scene at the supermarket. There
seems to have been some disturbance here. Pardon me, sir, did you see
what happened?

(Witness):
Yeah, I did. I's standin' overe there by the tomaters, and here he
come, running through the pole beans, through the fruits and vegetables,
nekkid as a jay bird. And I hollered over t' Ethel, I said, "Don't
look, Ethel!" But it's too late, she'd already been incensed.


laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 09:17 pm
@JTT,
Ragman noted,

Quote:
An Iraqi solder stands up and shoots his rifle over the bunker and yells, "It should end in Q!"

Then an Iranian soldier stands up and shoots his rifle over the bunker yelling, "It should end in N!"


Such circumstances will sadly always involve uniformed decisions.

As you see, I'm really mellowing in my attitude towards split infinites, yet still remain stuck in my enjoyment of the occasional elision course.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 09:25 pm
@laughoutlood,
Quote:
I'm really mellowing in my attitude towards split infinites


I'm happy to hear that, LOL. That seems an eminently sensible attitude to adopt considering it was a canard from the get go.
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 09:48 pm
@JTT,
Language distances itself from curiously echoing quanarts .
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:11 am
re JTT:
Is it early-onset Alzheimer's, JTT ?(pardon me, I'm making assumptions here. Is it normal-age-of-onset Alzheimer's, JTT?)

We've had discussions of "probably" and tenses of modals up the wazoo already. How soon you forget. I cited numerous example of each, and all you did was repeat your contentions. Your position rather explicitly devolved to : something with a probability of 50.1% will probably happen, whereas the same thing with a probability of 49.9% probably won't happen. That is patently absurd. No one but you, and apparently OmSig David, on whose figures pulled out of a hat you based your argument (you never cited anyone else) would suggest that.

Dictionary makers certainly can err. Soican you. When you have an outlier opinion, and dictionary compilers, as well as native speakers, disagree with you. I'm gonna go with the dictionary compilers. they're fact-checked before publication far more than you are.

Quote:
Quote:
You seem to ignore your highly selective use of information yourself, JTT.

Well, I'm happy to see you're honest enough to recognize that in you, MJ.

Quote:
You repeatedly cite dictionaries, but when every dictionary's definition of a word disagrees with you, then you start claiming that dictionary compilers are prone to mistakes

Are you suggesting that that is impossible?

Quote:
(I'm thinking here of "probably", which you blew big time.)

Please feel free to discuss it and point out where you believe I am wrong with respect to this issue.

Quote:
You also refuse to even countenance the fact that "could" functions as the past tense of "can", though numerous dictionaries and grammarians disagree with you.

Please feel free to discuss it and point out where you believe I am wrong with respect to this issue.

I must point out that even native speakers agree with me because none of them have provided any examples of that.

Quote:
You have your own little coterie of ESLians whose word you accept slavishly, and you give no credence to the legions who disagree with you. You are estraordinarily[sic] selective yourself.

The folks of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language aren't ESLians, Jack. The linguists at Language Log are also not ESLians. The authors of The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English are not ESLians.

There's a very good reason why folks in the field of ESL write on these issues, which is one of the many things you don't have any understanding about.

When ESLs follow the "rules" you and folks like you prescribe, they produce unnatural English. It only stands to reason that a person witnessing such an event would begin to question those "rules". Doncha think?



Before you"sic" me, I suggest you reread some of your own posts. I can "sic" you repeatedly. I admit I'm a rotten typist. You tend toward the ungrammatical when you blow it. Native speakers have in fact provided examples of where you're wrong. You're really bad on modals, and you in fact propound abvsurd prescriptive rules of your own that no native speaker would ever recognize, such as that one that you can't use "could" for past tense description of unique events. Nonsense. You regard google search as a source for corpuses to defend your points. Google "Yesterday I could...", which is only one example of an infinitude of ways you could express the concept, and look at the results and you'll find native speakers using it in the way your prescriptive "rule" says are ungrammatical.

I;m beginning to think ESL instructors don't actuall speak English but in fact speak Eslish, which has only a contingent relation to English.

It's your interpretation of what your sources like the Canbridge Grammar say that go astray, not necessarily what they say.

And then you're so smugly superior about the goofier things you come up with, and your snide insults to everybody that dares come up with another opinion, that earn you the widely-shared opinion of "troll".
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:57 am
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Stop it, don't keep quoting evermore.


But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'

http://www.heise.de/ix/raven/Literature/Lore/TheRaven.html

The wintry sun blinked it's only eye,
Watching children see if : then may vie ;
Begin the fun linked with when they try
Too near whistle's final lonely cry.

Compare and contrast whatsisname with the soccergamereport
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 04:06 am
@JTT,
Quote:
I don't see how that is pertinent, Spendi. I don't feel any need to support the positions of countries from which my ancestors came.


I didn't ask him to support it. I asked him what it was. He has not answered which is pertinent in general because it shows a subjective selectivity unusual for someone speaking on behalf of science.

If he did answer it he would find himself accusing his race of what he accuses US opponents of same sex "marriage" of.

fm has had me on and off Ignore numerous times. Or claimed so. That is also unusual for someone speaking on behalf of science and quite amazing that it should be trumpeted abroad as if it captures the intellectual high ground.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 05:31 am
@ossobuco,
All due respect maa, but I wil continue with my practices herein , and if they include quoting, well that is my Constitutional Write
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:26 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Your position rather explicitly devolved to : something with a probability of 50.1% will probably happen, whereas the same thing with a probability of 49.9% probably won't happen.


That's the problem with folks like you who get in way over their head - you make up stuff about what actually transpired. This is a flat out lie.

My position is and always has been; anything over 50 % describes an event that is more likely to happen than not happen. Anything under 50% describes an event that has a greater likelihood of not happening than happening.

Quote:
No one but you, and apparently OmSig David, on whose figures pulled out of a hat you based your argument (you never cited anyone else) would suggest that.


Re: Om, I noted, a bit sarcastically, that for once he actually got something right about language. I'm honest in that way, whereas extremely partisan folks like you find it highly disconcerting to support "opponents" even when it comes to the truth.

On the rest, another lie from you, MJ. Really, if you can't keep the arguments straight, if you can't even remember what was offered, you shouldn't be in these discussions at all.

THIS IS WHAT I PREVIOUSLY CITED.

Quote:
From The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [CGEL];

page 177

Medium Modality

There is a third category on the scale of strength which we call medium modality, though intuitively it is closer to the strong end than to the weak.


This immediate intuitive sense is likely what first caused InfraBlue to state that 'probably/likely/should' occupied only the higher range - I don't recall exactly what he offered, let's suggest, 80-90%.

This "intuitive sense" seems to also be the reason for your stubborn, and completely unrealistic notion that 'probably/likely/should' don't also cover the low range above 50%.

This despite the meaning for 'probable' as something that has a greater chance of happening than not happening.

The CGEL clearly recognizes that the range for 'probably/likely/should' extends far beyond that high range. I'll suggest that that higher range is more accurately described by adding an intensifier, so we get,

most probably//very or highly likely

which, again, tells us that they also describe a lower range.

In speech, this lower range is often voiced by drawing out portions of the sentence,

Thhhhhatt proooooobably won't happen.

Shhhheeee liiiiikely won't be coming.

Heeeee shoooooould have known.

That these examples exist, something which no one in their right mind would deny, perfectly describes that 'probably/likely/should' occupy a much wider range than you mistakenly believe, Jack.

The above examples are definitely weaker in modal strength than these identical in meaning ones below.

That probably won't happen.

She likely won't be coming.

He should have known.

And these are even stronger

That very probably won't happen.

She very likely won't be coming.

===============

Another of your lies, maybe just a lie of omission, is that you consistently fail to recognize and acknowledge that I devised this scale as a teaching tool to give ESLs a chance to begin to use what, for many, is the hardest part of English, the modal/semi-modal verbs.

It provides a framework where students can be easily prompted to give descriptions for situations where the instructor designates, as a check on comprehension, the student's level of certainty by means of a sign - 60%; 10%; 95%; 40%, indicating their imagined level of modal certainty.






spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:46 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Shhhheeee liiiiikely won't be coming.


As Henry Crawford might have whispered to an uncomprehending Edmund Bertram during the playing of Here Comes The Bride as Maria is led to the altar by Sir Thomas to be connected to Mr Rushworth in the sight of God.

Put your language expertise on that JTT and see what you come up with. Minuscule/miniscule is for yikkle kiddiewinks.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:57 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
I devised this scale as a teaching tool to give ESLs a chance to begin to use what, for many, is the hardest part of English, the modal/semi-modal verbs.


That is interesting JT. Fancy yourself as the next Piaget I assume. When's the book coming out?

Make sure minuscule is spelled correctly otherwise you will get an avalanche of letters from irate prescriptivists.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 06:34 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Put your language expertise on that JTT and see what you come up with.


There's no need for me to do that, Spendi. It only adds confirmation to the point I was making.

Why don't you treat us to your language expertise?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 06:36 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
That is interesting JT.


Thank you.

Quote:
Fancy yourself as the next Piaget I assume.


Nope.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 09:46 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Make sure minuscule is spelled correctly otherwise you will get an avalanche of letters from irate prescriptivists.


Only from the ignorant ones who don't do enough reading.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 09:50 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
fm has had me on and off Ignore numerous times. Or claimed so. That is also unusual for someone speaking on behalf of science and quite amazing that it should be trumpeted abroad as if it captures the intellectual high ground.


I couldn't agree more. He demeans the word 'academic'.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 09:56 pm
@MontereyJack,
Modal Verbs - can & could

Quote:
You also refuse to even countenance the fact that "could" functions as the past tense of "can", though numerous dictionaries and grammarians disagree with you.

...

such as that one that you can't use "could" for past tense description of unique events.


Quote:
Google "Yesterday I could...", which is only one example of an infinitude of ways you could express the concept, and look at the results and you'll find native speakers using it in the way your prescriptive "rule" says are ungrammatical.


Don't be silly, Jack. You google the things that you want to present as evidence for your position.

Please feel free to discuss it and point out where you believe I am wrong with respect to this issue.

I must point out that even native speakers agree with me because none of them have provided any examples of that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/30/2024 at 01:13:05